LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus BAHADUR SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1003 ~~ STATE OF PUNJAB A -. II. -..J, BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7347 of 2008) DECEMBER 17, 2008 B [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] .. ~ Service Law -- Regularisation - Of irregular appointees (not illegal appointees), working for more than ten years in duly sanctioned vacant posts without intervention of orders of c courts or of tribunals - Clarifications/directions given by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Uma Devi (3) case - Respondents working in work-charge establishment for decades as work-charge employees - Fifed writ petition seeking regularisation - Order passed by High Court - D Challenge to - Matter remitted to High Court for consideration ; afresh in view of directions passed in Uma Devi (3) case . ...,, keeping in view the statement made by respondents that their appointment was permissible and not illegal. Respondent No.1 was appointed in 1982 on work E charge basis. He continued to be employed in the said capacity without being regularized. In 2004, Respondent No.1 filed writ petition seeking regularization of his service. High Court disposed of the petition in terms of its earlier judgment in a similar writ F petition filed in 2003 by some work-charge employees like respondent no.1 wherein the High Court had directed regularization of services of all the petitioners before it with consequential reliefs. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Umadevi (3)* G case, had inter alia, held that any appointment made in violation of the constitutional scheme of equality would ~ be wholly illegal and, thus a nullity. However, the Court clarified that in cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) of duly qualified persons in duly :I003 H ..., ' 1004 ~ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals, the question· of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits 8 and passed consequential directions. In appeal to this Court, a question arose as to whether in view of the directions passed by this Court in Uma Devi(3)* case, the present matter should be remitted to the High Court. - c Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High / court, the Court HELD: The Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Uma Devi (3) had been read differently by different Benches. lo that case the Constitution Bench deprecated o appointment through side door/back door being contrary to the constitutional scheme of equality. Whereas· any irregularity can be regularized but an illegality cannot be. The matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh keeping in view the statement made E by the respondents that appointment in the work charge establishment was permissible in law and the recruitments had been made in accordance with law. [Paras 8, 9 and 11] (1009-G-H; 1012-D-E] *Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & F Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1; State of Mysore & Anr. v. S. V. Narayanappa (1967) 1 SCR 128; B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1979) 4 SCC 507; State of M:P. & Ors._ v. La/it Kumar Verma (-2007) 1 SCC 575 and Post Master General, Kolkata & Ors. v. Tutu Das (Dutta) (2007) 5 SCC 317, referred to. . G H Case Law Reference: (2006) 4 sec 1 referred to (1967) 1 SCR 128 referred to (1979) 4 sec 507 referred to (2007) 1 sec 575 referred to Para 6 Para 8 -Para 8 Para 9 I 'y- •, ) - .... f .... STATE OF PUNJAB v. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 1005 (2007) 5 SCC 317 referred to Para 10 A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7347 of 2008. From the Judgment and final Order dated 2.8.2005 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 7389 of 2004. Ajay Pal for the Appellant. , Neeraj Kumar Jain, Bharat Singh, Sandeep Chaturvedi and Ugra Shankar Prasad for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed againsf a judgment and order dated 2.8.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposing of the writ petition in terms B c - of its earlier judgment dated 12.8.2003 in Civil Writ Petition D No.1287 of 2003. ! 3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. -+-- The Fi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.