LexPANKAJ GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PANKAJ GUPTA AND ORS. ETC.
A
v.
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2004
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]
Service law :
Appointment-Government jobs-Rural masses-Inadequate
representation of-Discussion in legislative Assembly-Decision by State
C
Government-Heads of departments making appointments for Class JV posts
on recommendation of Members of legislative Assembly/Council-No
advertisement/notification issued inviting app{ications for those posts-Effect
of-Held: Appointments were illegal-Neither any criteria approved by
Government nor any rules of recruitment foll owed in making appointments-
D
Appointees had no right to regularization in service as procedure for their
appointment was erroneous-Directions issued for filling of posts by regular .
process-Appointees permitted to submit qpplication with relaxation of upper
age limit.
Appellants were appointed as Class IV employees with respondent-
E
state. Their appointments were challenged on the ground that there was
no advertisement calling for applications to fill up the vacancies. A
Single Judge of High Court held that the appointments were illegal. On
appeal, Division Bench confirmed same. Hence ~he present appeal.
F
Appellants contended that pursuant to discussion in the Legislative
Assembly regarding lack of proper representation of rural masses as
compared to urban candidates in Government jobs, State Government
made a decision, and their names were recommended by Members of
Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council to heads of various
departments who were competent to appoint them. Hence, their G
appointments were legal. They contended further that as they have been
working since last several years and crossed maximum age fixed for
entry to Government service, their services may be regularized.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
H
459
460
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
HELD : 1. No person illegally appointed or appointed without
B
c
D
following the procedure prescribed under the law, is entitled to
claim that he should be continued in service. In this situation, there
is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High
Court. [462-H; 463-A]
1.2. There was no publication of a notification inviting applications
for filling up these posts. The names .of these appellants were
recommended by the Members of Legislative Council and the Legislative
Assembly for appointment There is no evidence to show that any criteria
approved by Government or any rules of recruitment were followed
while making these appointments. It may be true that the appellants
may have been habitants of rural areas and there was no adequate
representation for this rural population in Government jobs. But the
Government or the heads of various departments could have formulated
and resorted to some rational modalities approved under the rules of
recruitment to see that rural population also got adequate representation
in public employment. But same could have been done within
constitutional limitations. [462-D, E, F]
2. The appointees have no right for regularization in the' service
because of the erroneous procedure adopted by the concerned authority
E
in appointing such .persons. [463-A]
F
G
H
3. It is directed that,
(i) all the vacant· posts shall be n,otified for appoiittments
and applications.called for in accordance with the Rules within six
months.
(iiJ all appellants herein ·may be permitted to submit application
for appointment against such notification.
(iii) as regards the upper age limit, the appellants shall be given
relaxation but there shall not be any relaxation in the matter of the
basic qualifications for appointments to Class IV posts.
(iv) the appellants may be allowed to continue in service till such
regular recruitments are made and these posts are filled up by a regular
process of appointments. (463-D, E, F]
PANKAJ GUPTA v. STATE [BALAKRISHNAN, J.]
461
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal N.os. 4927-4929
of 2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.2000 of the Jammu and
Kashmir High Court in L.P.A. (SW) Nos. 283, 377 and PERLP No. 589 of
2000.
WITH
C.A. No. 4930-32, 4941, 4933-40, 4944, 4943, 4942/2002 and C.A.
Nos. 6079, 6070-6078, 6068, 6069 and 6059-6067 of 2004.
Raju Ramachandran and D.C. Raina, G. M. Kawoosa, S.S. Jamwal, N.
Ganpathy, A. K. Raina for Anil Kr. Jha, Bhim Singh, B.S. Billowria, S. Vig,
Ms. PurniExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.