LexHARMINDER KAUR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 1050 A HARMINDER KAUR & ORS. v r UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Civil Appeal No. 3337-3361 of 2009 8 MAY 06, 2009 (S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Service Law - Regularisation - Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre)(Group 'CJ Recruitment Rules, 1991 .~ - Education Department of Chandigarh Administration - . " c School teachers appointed on contract basis - Claimed ... regularisation - Claim negated by CAT and High Court - Whether, having regard to the long tenure of service, the appointments should have been or could be directed to be regularized - Held, No - Appointments in question were only D for a specified period - Offers of appointment in no uncertain terms provided that the appointees would have no claim for regular appointment - Regularization is not a mode of )- appointment- When appointments in public office are required to be made, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are required E to be scrupulously followed - Long service by itself may not be a ground for directing regularization - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16. The appellants are school teachers. They were appointed by the Education Department of Chandigarh ~ F Administration on contract basis. Their services were governed by the Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre) (Group C) Recruitment Rules, 1991. Appellants, contending that they are entitled to be absorbed in the services of the Education Department, filed application G for their regularization before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the appellants had no right to be regularised in service i • and their appointment ·has to come to an end on their replacement by the regularly selected teachers. Appellants H 1050 HARMINDER KAUR & ORS. V. 1051 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. } filed writ petitions challenging the judgment of Tribunal A -1 which were dismissed by the High Court. In appeals to this Court, the question which arose for consideration was whether, having regard to the long tenure of service, appointment of the appellants should have been or could be directed to be regularised. B Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD:1.1. Appellants had be-en appointed only for a ,. ' specified period. The offers of appointment in no uncertain ... terms provided that the appointee would have no claim c for regular appointment available in the Institute. [Para 14) [1056-F-G] 1.2. Rule 6 of the Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre) (Group C) Recruitment Rules, 1991 empowers the Administrator to make relaxation of the D applicability of the Rules only in the event if he is of the .. opinion that it was necessary or expedient so to do, wherefor not only an appropriate order was required to be issued but also reasons were to be recorded in writing therefor. Relaxation of the Rules could be made only in E respect of any class or category of persons and not. with regard to the mode of recruitment. The offers of appoint- ment issued in favour of the appellants clearly go to show that the Rules had been relaxed only for the purpose ~ mentioned therein. [Para 15) [1056-G-H; 1057-A-B] 1.3. Long service by itself may not be a ground for F directing regularization. Regularization is not a mode of . appointment. When appointments in public office are required to be made, the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are required to be scrupulously followed. When a departure is made for not scrupulously G . .t· following the conditions precedent laid down in the ~ statutory rules as also the constitutional scheme, it is imperative that the same must be done within the four corners of the delegated power by the Authority con- cerned. [Para 15) [1057-C-D] H 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. · A Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1; Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees' Union v. Mineral "' Exploration Corpn. Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 31 O; National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. v. Somvir Singh (2006) 5 SCC 493; State of M.P & Ors. v. La/it Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575; Punjab Water B $upp/y & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh & ors. (2007) 2 SCC 491; Postmaster General, Kolkata & Others v. Tutu Oas (Dutta) (2007) 5 SCC 317; Official Liquidator vs. Oayanand & ors. (2008) 10 SCC 1; State of Kamataka & Ors. vs. Sri G. V. Chandrashekar (2009) 3 SCALE 653 and State of Bihar vs. ·i c Upendra Narayan S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.