LexKENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS. versus L.V. SUBRAMANYESWARA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) KENDRIY A VIDYALA YA SANGA TIIAN & ORS. A v. L.V. SUBRAMANYESWARA & ANR. MAY 10,2007 [S.B. SINHA AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] B Service Law: Regularisation-Claim of-Recruitment on adhoc basis against leave vacancies-Services continued by reason of interim order-Grant of C regularisation by High Court-Held: Services should not have been directed to be regularised since the advertisement was issued for leave vacancies, regular vacancies were not created and selections were held only at local level-Services continued for a long time as ad hoc/part time/contractual employees by reason of interim order by High Court-Appointment, Promotion, D Security etc. Rules, 1971-Rule 7 and 9. Respondents were registered with the local employment exchanges. Appellants appointed the respondents intermittently, on adhoc basis against leave vacancies. The appointment offer stipulated that the appointment would not confer any right upon them to claim regular appointment, and that they E were appointed as stop-gap arrangement for a particular period in the academic year. They were selected, but not by a regular selection committee. Respondents claimed regularization. By Interim orders they continued in service. Tribunal dismissed the transfer applications. Aggrieved respondents filed writ petitions. High Court held that the respondents have continued in F the services intermittently and with artificial breaks, but till their services were terminated, they have worked continuously and as such their se..Vices would be regularized though it was not regular selection. Hence the present appeals. Appellant contended that the respondents were recruited by way of a G temporary arrangement to meet the exigencies of work and have continued as ad hoc/part time/contractual employees inter alia by reason of the interim orders and as such their services should not have been directed to be regularized; and that the respondent's case does not come within the purview of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in *Secretary, State of TIS H 336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. A Karnataka and Ors. v. Umade't'i (3) and Ors. 's, case. Respondents-adhoc appointees contended that having worked for a long period and having the requisite qualifications, their services could not have been discontinued; that their names were sponsored by the employment exchange and they have been selected by a selection committee; that the Rule B of Equality in public employment and equal opportunity as emphasi7.ed by this Court in Umadevi's case as also the rule of reservation and the rules framed by the appellant having been satisfied, their appointment satisfies the test laid down in Umadevi's case; and that in any event, the exceptions carved out in Umadevi's case clearly apply in the instant case as their selection in terms ":\ C of Rule 9 of the Rules should be treated to be only irregular and not illegal. Allo~ing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Appellants would have been directed to be appointed on All India Basis had such regular vacancies been created. Respondent did not get D their names registered in the Central Employment Exchange. Keeping in view the nature of the job and in particular that the posts are transferable throughout the country, an opportunity within the meaning of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would mean an opportunity to all who are eligible therefor. Advertisement was issued for a limited purpose, namely, for leave vacancies, local employment exchanges were contacted only for filling of such E posts and not regular posts. Selections were held only at the local level and not on All India Level. (Paras 10 and 11) (342-C, D, E) 1.2. The respondents even did not complete the period of 10 years without intervention by the Court, they would not have been in service for more than 10 years but for intervention of the High Court, they had been continued in F service in terms of the interim order passed by the High Court. Therefore, it is not correct to contend that in the aforementioned backdrop of events, respondents satisfy the tests of equality, reservation or rule of law as adumbrated in Umadevi's case. [Paras 13 and 14) (344-G, E) G 1.3. Direction to regularize the services of the respondents in view of the authority by Constitution Bench in Umadevi's case, therefore cannot be said to be of any significance so as to deny the relief to the appellant. [Para 16) (345-G)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.