SATYA PRAKASH & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 16-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 450 
SATYA PRAKASH & ORS. 
- . 
v. 
'$TATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
(Ciyil Appeal No. 2440 of 2010) 
MARCH 16, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Labour Law - Daily wage workers - Over 10 years service 
- Claim for regularization on the basis of judgment in *Uma 
C Devi's case - Held: Since the workers not appointed on any 
sanctioned post, not entitled to benefit of regularization - *Uma 
Devi's case explained and distinguished. 
The appellants, who had worked for more than 10 
years on daily rated basis in Bihar Intermediate Education 
D Council, filed writ petition before the High Court seeking 
regularization of their services. Single Judge of High 
Court directed the Council to consider the claim for 
regularization. Since there was no positive direction for 
regularization, appellants filed writ appeal, which came to 
E be dismissed in limine. 
In appeal to this court appellants contended that in 
Para 53 of the judgment in *State of Karnataka vs. Uma 
Devi and Ors. 2006 (4) sec 1, the employees who had 
worked for 10 years or more were directed to be 
F regularized as one time measure and the same relief 
should be extended to the appellants. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The appellants are not entitled to get the 
G benefit of regularization of their services since they were 
never appointed in any sanctioned posts. Appellants 
were only engaged on daily wages. In Umadevi's case 
supreme Court held that the courts are not expected to 
issue any direction for absorption/regularization or 
H 
450 
SATYA PRAKASH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & 
451 
ORS. 
permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, 
A 
daily-wage or ad hoc employees. Such directions issued 
could not be said to be in consistence with the 
constitutional scheme of public employment. The Court 
held that merely because a temporary employee or a 
casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the 
B 
term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be 
absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely 
on the strength of such continuance, if the original 
appointment was not made by following a due process 
of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. In view C 
of the law laid down by this Court, the directions sought 
for by the appellants cannot be granted. Paragraph 53 of 
the Umadevi's judgment deals with irregular appointments 
(not illegal appointments). [Paras 6 and 7] [455-G; 455-C- · 
F] 
1.2. In Uma Devi's case the constitution bench has 
D 
. already drawn a distin(ftion between temporary 
employees, daily-wagers and those who were appointed 
irregularly in the sense that there was non-compliance of 
some procedure in the selection process which did not 
E 
go to the root of the selection process. Appellants will not 
fall in the category of the ~mployees mentioned in 
paragraph 53 read with paras' 15 and 16 of the Judgment 
in Uma Devi's case. Appellants' own case is that they 
were only engaged on daily wages basis and never 
F 
appointed in service either on a temporary basis or on 
ad-hoc basis. [Paras 9 and 13] [457-D-E; 459-C-D] 
State of Kamataka vs. Uma Devi and Ors. 2006 (4) -'3CC 
1, explained and distinguished. 
S. V, Narayanappa vs. State of Mysore (1967) 1 SCR G 
128; B.N. Nanjudappa vs. T. Thimmiah (1972)1 SCC 409, 
relied on. 
Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh 
Singh and Ors, (2007) 2 SCC 491; State of Punjab v. 
H 
452 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A Bahadur Singh and Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 737; C. 
Balachandran and Ors. v. State·of Kera/a and Ors. (2009) 3 
SCC 179; State of Kamataka and Ors. v. G. V. Chandrashekar 
(2009) 4 sec 342, referred to. 
2. Appellants stated that they had undergone a 
B selection process held fourteen years back, following an 
advertisement published in the year 1995 but the merit list 
was neither prepared nor published. Selection process, 
though undertaken by the Council was not completed 
and now the Council is no more in existence. However, 
C if the Board proposes to undertake any regular selection 
process to fill up the pqsts, the applications, if any, 
submitted by the appellants may also be considered after 
giving them age relaxation. [Para 14) [459-D-F] 
D 
State of Kamataka vs. Uma Devi and Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 
1, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2007) 2 sec 491 
Referred to. 
Para 2 
E 
(2oos) 15 sec 737 
Referred to. 
Para 2 
(2009) 3 sec 119 
Referred to. 
Para 2 
(2009) 4 sec 342 

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