RAJASTHAN KRISHI VISHVA VIDHYALAYA, BIKANER versus DEVI SINGH

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 853 · Decided: 14-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 853 
• 
RAJASTHAN KRISHI VISHVA VIDHYALAYA, BIKANER 
A 
v. 
DEVI SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 4327 of 2003) 
FEBRUARY 14, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
,~ -
'"' 
Service Law: 
Regularisation - Claim for, by casual workers - On the c 
ground of long rendition of service - High Court directed the 
employer to consider their case for regularization - On appeal, 
Held: Matter needs consideration in the light of decision in 
Uma Devi's case - Remitted to High Court - Rajasthan 
Regulation of Appointments to Public Service and 
Rationalisation of Staff Act, 1999 - ss. 7, 9, 11 and 19 -
D 
--' 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Public appointment. 
....,. 
Respondents were appointed on daily wage basis. 
Their services were terminated as there was no further 
..... 
work in the research centre where they were appointed. 
E 
They filed writ petitions praying for a direction to the 
\ 
employer-appellant to give benefit of regularization on the 
post of Class IV employees and to give regular scale of 
pay with effect from the date from which persons junior 
to him were given benefit of regularization and regular 
pay scale. A prayer was also made to declare ss.7, 9, 11 
F 
and 19 of the Rajasthan Regulation of Appointments to 
Public Service and Rationalisation of Staff Act, 1999 to be 
ultra vires to the Constitution of India, 1950. High Court 
declared ss. 9, 11 and 19 as ultra vires and directed the 
appellant to consider the case of the respondents-writ G 
-:.... 
t', 
petitioners. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that 
.. • 
since none of the respondents was in employment of the 
853 
H 
----i --- ----- ----
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
• 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
~ -
.,. 
A University from 1992 to 1995, the question of extending 
the benefit of regularization from the date when his junior, 
if any, was regularized does not arise. 
B 
Respor,idents contended that they were entitled to 
regulariz11tion because of long rendition of service. 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to the 
High Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. While directing that appointments, 
temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, 
C courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person 
has worked for some time and in some cases for a 
considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who 
accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in 
nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He 
D accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true 
that he is not in a position tp bargain - not at arms length 
-
since he might have been searching, for some 
employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts 
whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not 
E be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of 
appointment and to take the view that a person who has 
temporarily or casually got employed should be directed 
to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be 
creating another mode of public appointment which is not 
F permissible. [Para 6] [857-D, E, F & G] 
1.2. The argument that since one has been working 
for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue 
him, even though he was aware of the nature of the 
employment when he first took it up, is not one that 
G would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established 
by law for Public employment and'would have to fail when 
tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality 
of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 
It cannot also be held that the §ltate has held out any 
H promise while engaging these persons either to continue 
' 
RAJASTHAN KRISHI \l!SHVA VIDHYALAYA, BIKANER 
855 
l 
v. bEVI SINGH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, .l.J 
J.. 
-
. 
them where they are-or to make them permanent. The A 
State cannot con~titutionaliy make such ~ promise. 
[Para 6] [858-E & F; 859-B] 
Bhawani Singh and Ors. v. State and Ors. l2002)' 3 
Western Law cases 728; Secretary, State of Kamataka. and 
B 
Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors. (2006) 4 sec 1 - relied on • 
. 
~ . 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
r 
4327 of 2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2003 of the . 
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil C 
Writ Petition No .. 849 of 2002. 
WITH 
" 
Civil Appeal Nos. 712/2004, 1053, 4309, 4310, 11311, 
' 
4312, 4313 & 4314 of 2006. 
D 
~ 
Aruneshwar Gutpa, A.AG., Puneet Jain, Christi Jain, H.D. 
Thanvi, Sarad Kr. Singhania, Sushi

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