I.C.M.R. AND ORS. versus K. RAJYALAKSHMI

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1097 · Decided: 17-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

f, 
1.C.M.R. AND ORS. 
v. 
K. RAJYALAKSHMI 
JANUARY 17,2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATru, JJ.] 
Service Law: Regularisation-Appointment to temporary post on 
year to year basis in a project-Project continued for long time-Prayer 
for regularisation-Held, cannot be directed 
Necessary party: Union of India not impleaded as a party respondent-
Hence, prayer cannot be made for any direction to the Union of India. 
Service jurisprudence: Creation or sanction of a post is essentially an 
executive function. 
) 
Appellant No.I-Indian Council of Medical Research ("ICMR") is a 
society registered in research activities in the field of medicine. It carries 
out various research activities through various schemes/projects. One of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
such projects is called "National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau". For the 
aforementioned project, the Central Government admittedly grants grant-
E 
in-aid on year to year basis. 
Respondent was appointed on year to year basis. The post was also on 
year to year basis as the grant-in-aid of the Central Government in relation 
to the said project was on that basis. However, the project continued for a 
F 
/ 
'I" 
long time for one reason or the other. Respondent prayed for regularisation 
of her services. She filed writ petition which was transferred to Central 
Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal noticed that although a declaration 
was taken that the project should be made a permanent one and its activities 
should be expanded, but no such order was passed. It was in the 
aforementioned backdrop, the Tribunal opined that the services of the 
G 
respondent should be directed to be regularised from the date of filing of 
the Writ petition. The appellants preferred a writ petition thereagainst 
before the High Court. The respondent also filed a writ petition questioning 
that part of the order whereby regularisation was directed to be made w.e.f. 
the date of filing of the writ petition and not from the date of her initial 
H 
1097 
1 ()<)8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
appointment. Both the writ petitions were heard together. High Court 
directed that the services of the respondent should be regularised from the 
~ate of her initial appointment. Hence the present appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Before the Tribunal, the Union oflndia was not impleaded 
as a party respondent. No prayer, thus could have been made for a direction 
to the Union of India to make the project a permanent one. The question, 
therefore, which was required to be taken into consideration by the 
Tribunal was as to whether, despite the fact that a long number of years 
C 
have passed, the services of the respondent could have been directed to be 
regularised despite the fact that her appointment was on a purely adhoc 
basis on a temporary post. [Para 9) (1100-F-G) 
1.2. It has not been denied that the project being on an yearly basis, 
D , post could not have been sanctioned on a regular basis. Having regard to 
the fact that the appellant was bound to implement the project of the Central 
Government in terms of the grant in aid scheme, it could not have taken 
a decision on its own for making the project a permanent one. In absence 
of Union oflndia, therefore, the Tribunal and consequently the High Court 
committed a manifest error in entertaining the question as to whether the 
E 
project should have been made a permanent one or not. 
[Para 10) [1100-H, 1101-A) 
2. Keeping in view the fact that the project could not have been 
directed to be made a permanent one at the instance of the appellant, the 
F 
question of invoking the doctrine of fairness, did not arise. In service 
jurisprudence, it is well known, that creation or sanction of a post is 
essentially an executive function. (Para 11) (1101-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4349 of2006. 
G 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 10.2.2005 of the High Court 
H 
of Judicature at Madras in W.P. Nos. 7094/2001 and 488/2002 
Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. V .K. Rao, Saket Sikri and Madho Sikri for 
the Appellants. 
,_ 
-· > 
-
... ) 
" 
l.C.M.R. & ORS. v. K. RAJYALAKSHMI [SINHA, J.] 
1099 
V. Prakash, S.M. Jadhav, Himanshu Gupta, Brij Kishor Sah and Rahul 
A 
Joshi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. : 1. Appellant No. 1 - Indian Council of Medical 
Research ("ICMR") is a society registered under the Societies Registration 
Act. It is engaged in research activitie

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.