PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD versus RANJODH SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 317 · Decided: 06-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD 
v. 
RANJODH SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 6, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Service /aw-Regularisation-Employee engaged on contractual basis 
by statutory bodies-Regularisation, claim of, on basis of purported scheme 
A 
B 
of regularisation by State-Grant of, by High Court-Correctness of-Held: C 
Statutory bodies are bound to apply Recruitment Rules laid down under 
statutory rules and also constitutional provisions being a 'State'-Policy 
decision cannot be adopted by means of a circular letter since it is not a 
statutory instrument-Any departmental letter cannot prevail over statutory 
rule and constitutional provisions-Policy decision adopted in terms of Article D 
162 would be void-High Court issued directions on basis of the purported 
policy decision of State-Purported directions of the State sought to supercede 
statutory rules, thus bad in law-Appointment made without following the 
procedure ultra vires-Thus, order of High Court set aside-Constitution of 
India-Articles 12, 14, 16 and 16?. 
Appellant-Board undertook certain work and engaged respondents 
on contractual basis. Thereafter, appellant terminated the services of the 
respondents and also rejected their prayer for regularisation in terms of 
E 
the scheme framed for regularisation by the State. Respondent filed writ 
11c!:tion seeking implementation of the scheme by appellant and 
regularisation of their services. High Court directed the appellant to re- F 
instate the respondents in service and regularise their services. Hence the 
present appeals. 
Appellant-Board contended that the purported scheme of State of 
Punjab cannot be said to be applicable to the employees. 
G 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A statutory board is an autonomous body. Nothing has 
been brought to notice to show that under the statute any direction iggued 
by the State shall be binding on it. The State may have some control with H 
317 
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A regard to recruitment of employees of local authorities, but such control 
must be exercised by the State strictly in terms of the provisions of the 
Act. The statutory bodies are bound to apply the rules of recruitment laid 
down under statutory rules. They being 'States' within the meaning of 
Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are bound to implement the 
B constitutional scheme of equality. Neither the statutory bodies can refuse 
to fulfil such constitutional duty, nor the State can issue any direction 
contrary to or inconsistent with the constitutional principles adumbrated 
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The purported directions of 
the State were otherwise bad in law in so far as thereby the statutory rules 
were sought to be superceded. A circular letter furthermore is not a 
C statutory instrument. It was not even issued by the State in exercise of 
the power under Article 162 of the Constitution. Even a scheme issued 
under Article 162 of the Constitution, would not prevail over statutory 
rules. High Court did not address.itself to these questions.1322-D-H] 
D 
Pankaj Gupta and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors., [2004] 8 SCC 353 -
referred to. 
1.2. Once it is held that the terms and conditions of service including 
the recruitment of employees were to be governed either by the statutory 
rules or rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution 
E of India, it must necessarily be held that any policy decision adopted by 
the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution 
of India would be illegal and without jurisdiction. The distinction between 
irregularity and illegality is explicit. 1323-H; 324-A-B] 
Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors., [2004) 7 SCC 
F 112; Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors., [20061 4 
SCC 1; National Fetilizers Ltd and Ors. v. Somvir Singh, (2006] 5 SCC 493; 
State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey and Ors., (2006) 
8 SCC 67 and State of MP. & Ors. v. La/it Kumar Verma, (2006] 12 SCALE 
642, referred to. 
G 
1.3. High Court did not issue a writ of mandamus on arriving at a 
findmg that the respondents had a legal right in relation to their claim 
for regularisation, which it was obligated to do. It proceeded to issue the 
directions only on the basis of the purported policy decision adopted by 
the State. It failed to notice that a policy decision cannot be adopted by 
H m

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