MR. SANTOSH KUMAR VERMA AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA AND ORS.
Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 17-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed
MR. SANTOSH KUMAR VERMA AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT,
PATNA AND ORS.
JANUARY 17, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.)
Service Law :
Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981
A
B
c
S.6(3)-Regularisation of persons temporarily appointed-Limited tem-
porary tenure-Government's move for regularisation by seeking concurrence
from Public Service Commission-Rejection thereof by the Commis- D
sion-Held: No mandamus or direction could be issued to violate law-High
Court rightly did not issue any mandamus for regularisation of the services in
contravention of the Rules.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 445 of
~
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.9.96 of the Patna High Court
in L.P.A. No. 788/95 in C.WJ.C. No. 8597 of 1994.
Gopal Subramaniam, Santosh Kumar and R.N. Keshwani for the
Appellants.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
F
G
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division
Bench of the Patna High Court, made on 11.9.1996 in LPA No. 788/95.
The admitted position is that the appellants came to be appointed
as Assistant Engineers on daily wages @ Rs. 40 per day on November ·
16, 1987. Subsequently, they were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 880-1510 H
371
372
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997) 1 S.C.R.
A per month. They came to be selected by conducting examinations and the
appointments, accordingly, came to be made. An attempt was made by
2nd respondent, Regional Development Authority to regularise the ser-
vices and the proposal was sent to the Government for acceptance. The
Government accepting the proposal had referred the matter to the Public
B Service Commission. Since the Public Service Commission did not agree
c
D
· to the regularisation of their services, the appellants filed writ petition in
the High Court for a mandamus directing the authority to regularise their
services. The High Court in the impugned order refused to give direc-
tions. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, contends that Section 6(3) of the Bihar Regional Development
Authority Act, 1981 (for short, the 'Act') gives power to the Authority to
appoint the Secretary and other officers and employees of the Authority.
Under proviso thereto, the appointing Authority has the power to appoint
any person for a period not exceeding six months on any post carrying
the minimum salary of Rs. 500 and above after approval of the State
Government and the appointment though for six months will be on regular
basis. The authority has not madle any statutory rules for the mode of
recruitment. The advertisement did not indicate that these were tem-
E porary appointments. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to be
regularised in the service. We find no force in the contention.
F
Section 6(3) of the Act only empowers the Authority to appoint the
Secretary, and other officers and employees of the Authority. The power
under the proviso is only a breathing elbow power given to the Authority
to make temporary appointments so that the work of the Development
Authority goes on pending recruitment. Therefore, when the advertise-
ment was made for the recruitment, it was obviously in furtherance of
the power flown under the proviso for a limited period. Thereby, the
G appointments obviously are only temporary appointments. The appellants
realising the limited temporary tenure of the appointments had sought
assistance of the Government for regularisation which was negatived by
the Public Service Commission. It is seen that these posts are within the
purview of the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the Government
H sought the concurrence of the Public Service Commission and the Public
"' \
)
SX VERMA v. STATE'
373
Service Commission had not concurred and, in our view correctly with A
the request made by the Government. Therefore, any regularisation in
violation of the recruitment to 'be made by the Public Service Commission
is in contravention of the law. The High Court, therefore, rightly did not
issue any mandamus for regularisation of the services made in contraven-
tion of the Rules to violate and no mandamus or direction would be B
issued to violate law.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal dismissed.
Lex