STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus KU. SANDHYA TOMAR & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 11 S.C.R. 839 · Decided: 13-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 11 S.C.R. 839 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
v. 
KU. SANDHYA TOMAR & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9028 of 2012) 
DECEMBER 13, 2012 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,JJ.] 
Service Law - Appointment - Temporary appointment -
A 
B 
In a project -
Through Employment Exchange -
The C 
appointee joining another department - Later repatriated to 
parent department - Not permitted to join parent department 
- Subsequent advertisement for appointment to the post -
Challenged by the appointee - Advertisement quashed by 
Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court - On 
D 
appeal, held: The initial appointment was in violation of 
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - As the appointment 
was temporary, the appointee cannot claim any lien in respect 
of the said post - The appointee has no right to challenge 
the advertisement - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 
E 
and 16. 
Words and Phrases - 'Lien' - Meaning of, in the context 
of service law. 
Respondent No. 1 was appointed to the post of F 
Project Director in the Child Labour Elimination and 
Rehabilitation Society, throug,h the Employment 
Exchange on a temporary basis. Thereafter, she joined 
a post in the Department of the State Government. After 
eight months, she was repatriated to her parent G 
Department. But, she was not permitted to join the duty 
in her parent Department. The post of Project Director 
was thereafter advertised. 
839 
H 
A 
B 
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012) 11 S.C.R. 
Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition challenging the 
advertisemer:t. Single Judge of High Court quashed the 
advertisement. The Division Bench of High Court, in writ 
appeal affirmed the judgment of Single Judge. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Initial appointment of respondent No.1 was 
not made on the basis of any advertisement in any 
newspapet whatsoever. Hence, applications for the post 
C were not invited. It is a settled legal proposition that 
considering the candidature of persons by mere calling 
of names from the Employment Exchange does not meet 
the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution 
of India. Thus, respondent No.1 was not appointed 
D following the procedure mandatorily required by law, and 
that such appointment was admittedly in violation of 
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as several 
other eligible candidates have been deprived of their right 
to be considered for the post. [Para 7) [845-C·D·E·FJ 
E 
Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, 
A.P. (1996) 6SCC 216: 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 73; Veer 
Kunwar Singh UniversityAd Hoc Teachers Association and 
Ors. v. Bihar State University (C. C.) Service Commission and 
F. Ors., (2009) 17 SCC 184: 2007 (7) SCR 396; Union of India 
and Ors. v. Miss. Pritilata Nanda AIR 201 O SC 2821: 201 O 
(8) SCR 733; State of Orissa and Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty 
(2011) 3 sec 436: 2011 (2) SCR 704 - relied on. 
2. It is a settled legal proposition that in the event that 
G a person is not appointed on a regular basis, and if his 
service is not governed by any Statutory Rules, he shall 
be bound by the terms and conditions that have been 
incorporated in his appointment letter. In such an 
eventuality, there can be no reason with respect to why 
H 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. KU. SANDHYA 
841 
TO MAR 
the terms and conditions incorporated in the appointment A 
letter should not be enforced against such an employee. 
In the instant case, respondent No.1 was temporarily 
appointed in a project, and, thus she had at no point of 
time been appointed on a regular basis, owing to which 
she cannot claim any lien with respect to the said post. 
B 
[Para 8) (845-G-H; 846-A-B] 
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Surinder Kumar and or5., 
AIR 1992 SC 1593: 1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 553 - relied on. 
3. "Lien" connotes the civil right of a Government C 
servant to hold the post "to which he is appointed 
substantively." The necessary corollary to the aforesaid 
right is that such appointment must be in accordance with 
law. A person can be said to have acquired lien as 
regards a particular post only when his appointment has 
D 
been confirmed and when he has been made permanent 
to the said post. "The word 'lien' is a generic term and, 
standing alone, it includes lien acquired by way of 
contract, or by operation of law."Whether a person has 
lien, depends upon whether he has been appointed in 
E 
accordance with law, in a substant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.