LexNATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. & ORS. versus SOMVIR SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. & ORS. A v. SOMVIR SINGH MAY 12, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B Service Law : Appointment-By Government Company-In violation of Recruitment Rules-Regularisation thereof-Permissibility of-Held Appointments in C violation of Recruitment Rules would render them as nullities-If appointment is without following the Rules, the question of regularization thereof would not arise. D Appellant, a Government Company took a policy decision not to make further recruitment. Despite such ban 52 employees including respondents were appointed without any advertisement and without any intimation to employment exchange i.e. in violation of the Recruitment Rules made by the appellant. Writ Petitions were filed in various High Courts. Different views were expressed by different High Courts. Writ Petitions filed by the respondents were allowed directing the appellant E to regularize the services of the respondents. In appeal to this Court respondent contended that their appointments might be irregular but not illegal, that for Class IV employees, Employment Exchanges were not required to be notified. F Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1.1. The appointments of the Respondents are illegal. They do not, thus, have any legal right to continue in service. (407-E-FJ 1.2. The Respondents herein were appointed only on applications made by them. Admittedly, no advertisement was issued in a newspaper nor the employment exchange was notified as regard existence of vacancies. It is now trite law that a 'State' within t~e meaning of Article G 12 of the Constitution oflndia is bound to comply with the constitutional H 397 A B c D E F 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. requirements as adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 thereof. When Recruitment Rules are made, the employer would be bound to comply with the same. Any appointment in violation of such Rules would render them as nullities. It is also well-settled that no recruitment should be permitted to be made through backdoor. [402-E-G) Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors., [20061 4 SCALE 197, followed. Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and Ors., (2006) 2 SCALE 115; State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, (1967) 1 SCR 799; Nanjundapa v. T Thimmiah and Anr., (197212 SCR 799 and B.N. Nagarajan and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (1979) 3 SCR 937, relied on. 1.3. Regularisation is not a mode of appointment. If appointment is made without following the Rules, the same being a nullity the question of confirmation of an employee upon the expiry of the purported period of probation would not arise. (404-A-B) 1.4. It cannot be said that the appointments were irregular and not illegal. Respondents were appointed only on the basis of their applications. The Recruitment Rules were not followed. Even the Selection Committee had not been properly constituted. In view of the ban in employment, no recruitment was permissible in law. The reservation policy adopted by the appellant had not been maintained. Even cases of minorities had not been given due consideration. (407-A-CI 1.5. It is true that the Respondents had been working for a long time. It may also be true that they had not been paid wages on a regular scale of pay. But, they did not hold any post. They were, therefore, not entitled to be paid salary on a regular scale of pay. Furthermore, only because the Respondents have worked for some time, the same by itself would not be a ground for directing regularisation of their services. G [407-F-GJ 2. The plea that for Class IV employees, the Employment Exchanges were not required to be notified in view of Section 3(1)(d) of the 1959 Act does not appear to have been raised before the High Court. No H material was placed by the employer to show as to whether the job of NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. v. SOMVIR SINGH [SINHA, J.] 399 the respondents was within the purview of the aforementioned A provision. (402-G-H, 403-C-D] 3. The respondents said to be working, may be relieved of their posts. However, their cases may be considered for future appointment and age bar, if any, in view of the policy decision of the appellant itself maybe relaxed to the extent they had worktrl. The salary or any remuneration paid to them, however, may not be recovered. This order, however, is being passed in exerd~e of jurisdiction under Article 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.