STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus DAYA LAL & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 13-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 707 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
v. 
DAYA LAL & ORS. 
(Cjvil Appeal No. 486 of 2011) 
JANUARY 13, 2011 
[R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Service law: 
A 
B 
. Regularization -
Legal principles relating to c 
regularization and parity in pay - Discussed. 
Regularization - Persons appointed as Superintendents 
in aided non-governmental Hostels - Claim for absorption by 
·way of regularization in government service or salary on par 
with Superintendents in Government Hostels - Held: Not D 
maintainable - Government is liable only to extend'aid to the 
aided non-governmental hostels by way of a grant to students 
staying in such hostels, to meet the expenditure of food, water, 
electricity, clothes, hair-cutting, soap, oil and shoes and 
another grant for books and stationery of such students -
E 
Government is not liable to bear the expenses of salary and 
allowances of the employees of the aided hostels and it.is for 
the private organizations which run the aided hostels to meet 
the salaries of employees from their own resources - The 
persons employed in the aided hostels are the employees of F 
the respective organizations running those hostels and are not 
the. employees of the Government - Government merely 
prescribed the eligibility conditions to be fulfilled by the private 
organizations to get grants to meet the food and education 
expenses of students staying iri such hostels - Therefore, 
G 
persons employed by the aided hostels could not be termed 
as persons employed by the State· Government - Nor could 
the Government be held liable for their service conditions, 
absorption, regularisation or salary of employees of private 
707 
Ji 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 1 S.C.R. 
A hostels -
Government and Aided Hostels Management 
Rules, 1982 - rr. 5, 9 and 11. 
Temporary employee - Part-time cooks and chowkidars 
employed on temporary basis in the Government hostels, wH/J 
• 
8 few years of service - Claim for regularization by framing a · 
special scheme - Held: Not entitled - Service for a period of 
one or two years or continuation for some more years by virtue 
of final orders under challenge, or interim orders, would not 
entitle them· to any kind of relief either with reference to 
C regularization nor for payment of salary on par with regular 
employees of the Department - If there was a one time 
scheme for regularisation of those who were in service prior 
to a cut off date, there cannot obviously be successive 
directions for scheme after scheme for regularization of 
i"egular or part-time appointments - Interim order. 
D 
Regularisation - Jurisdiction of High Courts to direct 
regularization, absorption or permanent continuance - Held: 
High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the 
Constitution will not direct regularization, absorption or 
E permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming 
regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular 
recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an opf!n 
competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts -, 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 and 226. 
F 
The questions which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeals were whether persons .appoint~d· a~ 
Superintendents in aided non-governmental Hostels at~ 
entitled to -claim absorption by way of regularization. in 
governm~nt service 
or salary on · par ·with 
G Superintendents in GoYernment Hostels and whether 
part-time cooks and chowkidars appointed temporarily 
by Mess Committees of Government Hostel$, with two or 
three years service, are entitled to regutarization by 
framing a special scheme. 
H 
·--
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. DAYA LAL & 
709 
ORS. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
A 
B 
HELD: 1.1 High Courts, in exercising power under 
Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for 
regularization, absorption or permanent contl'rlUance, 
unless the employees claiming regularization had been 
appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in 
accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive 
process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality 
clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be 
scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a 
direction for regularization of services of an employee 
C 
which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While 
something that is irregular for want of compliance with 
one of the elements in the process of selection which 
does not go to the root

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