PRINCIPAL, MEHAR CHAND POLYTECHNIC AND ANR. versus ANU LUMBA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 436 · Decided: 08-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRINCIPAL, MEHAR CHAND POLYTECHNIC AND ANR. 
B 
v. 
ANU LUMBA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 8, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 16-Public employment-Project 
under scheme of Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of 
C Jndia--Under norms for implementation of scheme expenditure on wages of 
employees had to be within a fixed limit of total recurring expenditure and 
taking them on scale was not permissible-High Court directing creation of 
posts and allowing grant of scale of pay-Correctness of-Held-Prior to 
appointment of employees no vacancy or sanctioned post existed-Posts 
were neither advertised nor notified to Employment Exchange-Recruitment 
D was not in terms of statutory rules and/or upon compliance of requirements 
envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 the Constitution-Employees did not 
have legal right to be absorbed in service especially as they were appointed 
purely on temporary basis and the project, although continued for some time, 
was initially intended to be a time bound one. 
E 
Respondents were appointed as Assistant Computer Instructors with 
appellant who had undertaken a Community Polytechinc Project under a 
scheme of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of 
India. Under norms issued for implementing the s<;heme, expenses were to be 
granted by the Central Government. As regards recurring expenditure, 
F Instructors were to be appointed on a consolidated amount within a fixed limit 
of total recurring expenditure. It was also directed that taking of person on 
scale was not permissible for purposes of the scheme. Respondents made 
representation for grant of scale of pay, which was rejected. However, High 
Court allowed their writ petition directing the appellant to create suitable posts 
and also consider the question of regularization of their services to the said 
G post. Hence, the present appeal. 
H 
Appellants contended that respondent was appointed in a project and 
hence their services could not be regularized. 
Respondents contended that (i) Union of India, being a model employer, 
436 
, 
y<. 
PRINCIPAL, MEHARCHANDPOLYTECHNIC v. ANULUMBA 
437 
could not have taken recourse to arbitrary exercise of power by imposing such A 
harsh conditions of service (ii) putting of long years of service itself would be 
sufficient for directing regularization of service. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD I.I. Public employment is a facet of right to equality envisaged B 
under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The State although is a model 
employer, its right to create posts and recruit people therefor emanates from 
the statutes or statutory rules and/or rule framed under the proviso appended 
to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The recruitment rules are framed 
with a view to give equal opportunity to all the citizens of India entitled for C 
being considered for recruitment in the vacant posts. [442-DI 
1.2. The Parliament for giving effect to the provisions of Article 16 of 
the Constitution enacted the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification 
of Vacancies) Act, 1959. The statutes and the statutory rules framed by the 
Union of India and other State also invariably requite issuance of public notices D 
so as to enable all eligible candidates to file applications thereof. The 
Constitution and/or statutes or statutory rules do not make any distinction 
between post and posts. The recruitment process for all posts is the same. 
(442-EI 
2. It is not the case of the respondents that prior to issuance of the said E 
offer of appointment any vacancy existed. It is furthermore not their case that 
they were recruited in terms of the statutory rules and/or upon compliance 
of the requirements envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution 
of India. It is also not their case that prior to their appointments any 
advertisement was issued enabling the eligible candidates to file applications 
therefor or the vacancies were notified to the Employment Exchange. 
F 
(440-G-H; 441-AI 
3. Neither a policy decision was taken by the Central Government nor 
there existed any rules in this behalf. The respondents did not have legal right 
to be absorbed in service. They were appointed purely on temporary basis. 
G 
[445-G-H; 447-G-HJ 
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors., (20061 4 
SCC 1, Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi 
Administrative, Delhi and Ors., (

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