P. RAVINDRAN AND ORS. versus UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 158 · Decided: 01-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P. RAVINDRAN AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 1, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Ad-hoc appointment~Lecturers appointed on ad-hoc basis in Union 
C Tenitory of Pondicheny-Appeared before Public Service Commission at the 
time of regular recruitment-Not selected-Subsequently they filed petitions 
before Administrative Tribunal claiming regularisation-Tribunal dismissed 
the claim observing that since the posts were required to be filled up by 
recruitment from the open market through Commission, it had no power to 
issue directions to regularise petitioners' services-Held, Tribunal rightly 
D rejected the claim-The Commission having been entrusted with the constitu-
tional duty to select suitable candidates by inviting applications from open 
market, every candidate has a fundamental right to seek consideration and 
for selection through open competition-Process of recruitment through Com-
mission, as envisaged under the Constitution, cannot be bypassed by issuing 
E direction for regularisation of services of ad-hoc persons. 
J & K Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors., 
[1994] SCC (L & S) 723, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
p 
Nos. 20933-36 of 1996. 
From the Judgment 
and 
Order dated 20.2.96 of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. Nos. 290, 292-93 and 782 of 
1995. 
G 
K.M.K. Nair for the Petitioners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
H 
The special leave petitions arise from the orders of the Administra-
158 
-\ 
P.RAVINDRANv. UNIONTERRITORYOFPONDICHERRY 
159 
tive Tribunal made on February 20, 1996 in QA No. 290/95 and batch. A 
The petitioners were appointed as Lecturers on ad hoc basis and some 
of them had obtained M. Phil, Ph.D. also. When the regular recruitment 
through the Public Service Commission (the "Commission", for short) was 
conducted, the petitioners also appeared before the Commission but they 
were not selected. Subsequently, the petitioners filed petitions for B 
regularisation of their services. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has 
pointed out that since posts are required to be filled up by recruitment 
from the open market through the Commission, the Tribunal has no 
power to issue direction to regularise the services. Thus, these special 
leave petitions. 
c 
Shri K.M.K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended 
that the petitioners are Post-graduates, M.Phil and Ph.D. and they are 
highly qualified and have acquired experienc_e from 1987 as lecturers. 
When they were appointed, number of vacancies were available. Since D 
they have been working since 1987, they require to be regularised by 
suitable directions. We find no force in the contention. The admitted 
position is that the Commission having been entrusted with the constitu-
tional duty to select suitable candidates by inviting applications from the 
open market, every candidate has a fundamental right to seek considera-
tion and for selection through open competition. The petitioners also have E 
that right. At one time, they staked their claims but were not selected. 
Therefore, the process of recruitment through the Commission, as en-
visaged under the Constitution, cannot be bypassed by issuing direction 
for regularisation of the services of the ad hoc persons who had come to 
the service through back-door entry. This Court in catena of decisions 
has deprecated this practice of regularisation except in extra-ordinary 
cases by directing the Government to frame a scheme and regularise Class 
F 
III and IV services in accordance with the scheme. Even in subsequent 
decisions, that leverage is not being insisted upon. This Court in J & K 
Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors., (1994] G 
SCC (L & S) 723 had held that the Court cannot adopt hybrid process 
of direction to regularise the services bypassing process of selection 
envisaged under the Constitution. This Court has deprecated the Govern-
ment for exercising the power under Article 320 of the Constitution taking 
out the posts from the purview of the Commission and to regularise H 
160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
. A services de hors the Commission. Under those circumstances, we are of 
the view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim to grant the relief 
sought for. 
The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed subject to

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