STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS versus DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, BANDIPORA

Citation: [2016] 12 S.C.R. 106 · Decided: 08-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2016) 12 S.C.R. 106 
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS 
v. 
DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, BANDIPORA 
(Civil Appeal No. 11941 of2016) 
DECEMBER 08, 2016 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI, DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND 
L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Regularization - PIL seeking construction of District court 
complex - High Court proceeded to issue directions for en masse 
regularization of services of daily rated workers engaged in High 
Court - Held: High Court proceeded without considering relevant· 
constitutional and legal principles enunciated in the judgments of 
D Supreme Court regarding regularization of employees - On facts, 
the directions issued were totally unconnected to the reliefs sought 
in the PIL - The State Government had constituted an empowered 
Committee to inquire into the issue of creating posts for 
regularization of daily rated and casual workers -
High Court, 
E 
F 
however, pre-empted consideration by issuing direction for 
regularization - Further, lack of clarity in actual nu111ber of daily 
rated workers in the High Court and district judiciary and who 
among them eligible to be considered for regularization, yet to be 
determined - High Court erred in holding that daily rated workers 
in High Court would not be governed by SRO 64 of 1994 - Impugned 
order of the High Court directing regularization of e111ployees set 
aside - Public Interest Litigation . 
. While hearing a PIL instituted by the District Bar Association for 
construction of a District Court Complex, the High Court took note of an 
application filed by the daily rated workers engaged in the High Court 
and passed an interim order observing that the State is duty bound to 
G 
consider claim of the daily rated workers and as a "one time exception" 
regularize their services. SLP filed by the State government against the 
interim order was dismissed. Subsequently, the High Court issued a 
further direction in which notice was taken of the fact that the State 
government had, over a considerable.period of time, failed to create the 
H 
106 
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR v. DISTRICT BAR 
107 
ASSOCIATION, BANDIPORA 
required number of posts for the State judiciary. The High Court took 
A 
the view that following the dismissal of the said SLP, the State was duty 
· bound to create posts for the absorption of daily rated workers. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Regularisation is not a source of recruitment nor 
is it intended to confer permanency upon appointments which 
8 
have been made without following the due process envisaged by 
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Essentially a scheme for 
regularisation, in order to be held to be legally valid, must be 
one which is aimed at validating certain irregular appointments 
which may have come to be made in genuine and legitimate c 
administrative exigencies. In all such cases it may be left open to 
Courts to iift the veil to enquire whether the scheme is aimed at 
achieving the above objective and is a genuine attempt at 
validating irregular appointments. The State and its 
instrumentalities cannot be permitted to use this window to 
validate illegal appointments. The second rider which must D 
necessarily be placed is that the principle as formulated above is 
not meant to create or invest in a temporary or ad hoc employee 
the right to seek a writ commanding the State to frame a scheme 
for regularisation. Otherwise, this would simply reinvigorate a 
class of claims which has been shut out permanently in Uma Devi 
E 
case. Ultimately, it would have to be left to the State and its 
instrumentalities to consider whether the circumstances warrant 
such a scheme being formulated. The formulation of such a 
scheme cannot be accord~d the status of an enforceable right. It 
would be prudent to leave it to a claimant to establish whether he 
or she falls within the exceptions carved out in paragraph 53 of F 
Uma Devi case and falls within the ambit of a scheme that may be 
formulated by the State. Subject to the riders referred to above, 
a scheme of regularisation could fall within the permissible limits 
of Uma Devi and be upheld. [Para 19) (127-C-G] 
r 
2. The High Court proceeded to issue directions for 
G 
regularization without considering either the legal position · 
enunciated in the judgments of Supreme Court and without 
considering the prevailing rules and regulations on the subject. 
' 
While some of the daily rated workers have been engaged over 
long periods

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