STATE OF M.P. & ANR. versus MD. ABRAHIM

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 06-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.l 
• 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 229 
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. 
v. 
MD. ABRAHIM 
(Civil Appeal No. 3378 of 2009) 
MAY 6, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) 
Labour Law: 
A 
B 
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960: 
c 
ss. 60 and 61 - Daily wager - Claim for classification in 
permanent category on the post of driver- On the ground that 
his junior was classified as such - Held: Claimant was not a 
regular appointee - He was not entitled to be classified in 
0 
permanent category. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 12, 14 and 16 - Public appointments by 'State' 
- Held: Constitutional scheme laid down in Articles 14 and 
E 
16 has necessarily to be followed - An appointment through 
side door being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 would be 
illegal . 
The respondent was engaged on daily wage basis 
in three spells of 89 days each, from 22.9.1980 to 
F 
19.12.1980 as driver; thereafter as a helper from 21.1.1981 
. to 28.2.1981 and again as a driver from 1.7.1982 to 
31,!;.1983. On 11.7.1988 he filed an application ulss.61 and 
62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 
claiming classification in permanent category on the post G 
of driver contending that one 'IS' who was junior to him 
had been classified in permanent category. The Labour 
Court allowed the application and the High Court 
229 
H 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 
A dismissed department's writ petition. 
Allowing Department's appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is not correct to say that the respondent 
B 
was appointed in the same category of employment for 
a long time. He had been appointed in different 
categories of appointment at different points of time and 
at different places. Furthermore, the documents 
produced by the parties before the Labour Court itself 
showed that whereas the respondent had been working 
c since 22.09.1980, the other employee, namely, 'IS' had 
been working since 27 .01.1980. If on that premise, the 
selection committee comprising of three senior officers 
of the appellants had classified the said 'IS' in the 
permanent category, no exception could be taken 
D thereto. [Para 1 OJ [235-A-D] 
1.2. Appellant No. 1 is a 'State' within the meaning of 
Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In making offers of 
public appointment, it is necessary to follow the 
E constitutional scheme laid down in Articles 14 and 16. of 
the Constitution For the purpose of legal and valid 
recruitment, the provisions of recruitment rules are 
required to be complied with. An appointment through 
side door being in violation of Articles 14 and 16, would 
• 
F be illegal. [Para 12] [235-F-H; 236-A] 
Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) 
and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1; Official Liquidator v. Dayanand 
and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1; State of Bihar v. Upendra 
Narayan Singh & Others 2009 (4) SCALE 282 and State of 
G M.P. and Others v. La/it Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575, 
relied on. 
1.3. In view of the authoritative pronouncements, the 
impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is set 
H aside. However, if it is found that after the death of 'IS' 
.. 
STATE OF M.P. & ANR v. MD. ABRAHIM 
231 
the respondent was otherwise entitled to classification in 
A 
the permanent category, the appellants would accord him 
the said status. [Para 14] [237-B-C] 
Case Law Reference: 
(2006) 4 sec 1 
relied on 
(2008) 10 sec 1 
relied on 
2009 (4) SCALE 282 
relied on 
(2007) 1 sec 575 
relied on 
para 12 
para 12 
para 12 
para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3378 of 2009. 
B 
c 
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.01.2006 of the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W.P. No. 1194 
D 
of 2005 and order dated 01.12.2006 in W .A. No. 536 of 2006. 
S.K. Dubey, B.S. Banthia, Vikas Upadhyay and Yogesh 
Tiwari for the Appellants. 
Annam D.N. Rao for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J.1. Leave granted. 
E 
2. Respondent was appointed on the post of driver on 
F 
daily-wage basis. He was initially appointed for 89 days. His 
services admittedly had not been regularized. He was not 
placed in the category of a permanent employee in terms of 
the Standing Order framed under Madhya Pradesh Industrial 
Relations Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"). 
G 
3. A selection panel was prepared wherein the particulars 
of the employees in question were recorded. We may notice 
the relevant entries: 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
232 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 
"SI.

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