MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JABALPUR versus OM PRAKASH DUBEY

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 85 · Decided: 05-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JABALPUR 
A 
v. 
OM PRAKASH DUBEY 
DECEMBER 5, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 12, 14, 16, 136/Madhya Pradesh 
Municipal Corporation Act, 1956: 
C 
Regularization of services of daily wagers-Municipal Corporation 
appointing large number of workmen without complying with the recruitment 
procedure in terms of Rules-Industrial [>isputes-Awards--Challenge to--
Contempt petition filed on ground that corporation discriminating amongst D 
employees in regularizing their services-High Court directing the 
Corporation to make a proper gradation list of employees before considering 
their regularization-On appeal, Held: Corporation is a State in terms of 
Article 12 of the Constitution-Bound by constitutional provisions contained 
in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and rules and regulations made 
thereunder-Principles of public e'!lployment as contained therein not E 
complied with-High Court issued direction to the Corporation in exercise 
of its jurisdiction under Section 12 of 1971 Act without arriving at a finding 
that how the Corporation violated its order-Judgment of High Court is 
subject to correction by this Court i~ appeal-Hence set aside--ConJempt of 
Courts Act, 1971-ss. 12 and 13-lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947-lndustrial F 
Dispute. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Irregular appointment' and 'illegal appointment'-Distinction 
between-Discussed. 
'Regularisation'-Meaning of in the context of service jurisprudence-
Discussed. 
A large number of employees were appointed by the Appellant-Municipal 
85 
G 
H 
86 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A Corporation, Jabalpur on daily wages. The recruitment procedure, as laid down 
under the rules framed by the State of Madhya Pradesh had not been followed. 
An industrial dispute has been raised. Labour Courts, in their Awards, arrived 
at different conclusions. The Corporation purported to have laid down a policy 
decision to regularise the services of the employees. Several writ petitions 
B were filed by the aggrieved employees questioning the correctness or otherwise 
of the Awards. A contempt petition was also filed by the respondent-employee 
alone, inter alia, on the premi"se that the Corporation was making 
discrimination amongst the employees in the matter of regularisation of their 
services. High Court directing the Corporation to make a proper gradation 
list of the employees in question before regularizing their services. Hence 
C ' the present appeal. 
Appellant-Corporation contended that the High Court committed a 
serious error in directing regulariZiltion of services of the employee, as the 
purported policy decision on the basis whereof the High Court passed its order 
framing a scheme of rt>gularisation, has been superceded by issuing a 
D Circular by the State; and that having regard to the various decisions of this 
Court and in particular, the Constitution Bench Judgment in Secretary, State 
of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors., the impugned judgment cannot 
be sustained. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l.l. Appellant is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of 
the Constitution of India. It, being a statutory authority, in the matter of 
recruitment of employees is bound by the constitutional provisions contained 
in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as also the rules and ·regulations 
F framed by it. It did not have the last say as all appointments were subject to 
approval of the State of Madhya Pradesh, whose decision was to be final Again, 
the concerned employees were recruited in terms of the extant rules. Prior 
to their appointment, no advertisement has been issued. The employment 
exchange had not been notified in regard to the existing vacancy. In short, the 
principle of'public employment' laid down under Article 16 of the Constitution 
G oflndia has not been complied with. Regularisation, as is well known, is not 
a mode of appointment. Regularisation does not mean permanence. 
l91-C-D-E) 
H 
Secret_ary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi, 2 and Ors. [20061 4 
SCC 44: \2003) 10 SCALE 388, followed. 
MUNICIPAL CORPRN. JABALPUR v. OM PRAKASH DUBEY 
87 
1.2. In the event the appointment is made in total disregard of the A 
constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, 
which is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution oflndia, 
the recruitment would be an illegal one; wh

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