STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus REKHA RANI

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 1154 · Decided: 30-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011) 3 S.C.R. 1154 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
REKHA RANI 
(Civil Appeal No. 1017 of 2007) 
MARCH 30, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Regularization - Claim for - Writ petition - Held: The 
C High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 cannot 
regularize an employee - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 
226. 
Termination - Of respondent-temporary employee -
D Challenge to - Held: On facts, the respondent's service was 
not terminated as a measure of punishment, hence, no 
opportunity of hearing was necessary for terminating her 
service - Direction for her reinstatement cannot be sustained 
as she was only a temporary employee and hence had no 
E right to the post - Merely because some others had been 
mgularized did not give any right to the respondent - An 
illegality cannot be perpetuated - Constitution of India, 1950 
- Articles 14 and 16. 
Precedent - Supreme Court dismissing SLP against 
F judgment of High Court - Held: The .decision of the Supreme 
Court did not amount to a precedent as it did not contain any 
discussion on the merits of the case. 
The respondent, a BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurvedic 
G Medicine and Surgery) degree holder, had been 
a1ppointed under the Anshkalik (temporary) Scheme of 
the State Government and posted at a Government 
Hospital. She was terminated from service. 
The respondent filed writ petition before High Court 
H 
1154 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. REKHA RANI 
1155 
claiming entitlement to regularization in service and parity 
A 
in wages as regular employees alleging tint the State 
government fiad terminated her service arbitrarily. The 
respondent alleged that Anshkalik doctors had filed a writ 
petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 4886 of 1990 before 
the High Cuurt which allowed the same on 11.2.1992 
B 
holding that there was violation of Articles 14 and 16 of 
th" Conl>titution, and directed that the claim of the writ 
petitioners for regularization be considered. The 
respondent alleged that the said High Court judgment 
became final when SLP filed thereagainst was dismissed c 
by this Court on 19.2.1996 and that she is entitled to 
benefit of the said decision. The writ petition filed by the 
respondent was allowed by the High Court. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Con1 
D 
HELD:1. There is no discussion on the merits in the 
order of this Court dated 19.2.1996 passed in the SLP filed 
against the judgment and order of the Higlit Court in writ 
petition No. 4886 of 1990. Thus, the aforesaid decision of 
E'' 
this Court does not amount to a precedent and the 
respondent can take no benefit from the same. [Para 1 O] 
· - [1159-B] 
2. A regular appointment can only be made after 
selection by the U.P. Public Service Commission. Also, 
F 
admittedly, the respondent was only a temporary 
employee and had not worked after 16.4.1991. The High 
Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 cannot 
regularize an employee. Merely because some others had 
been regularized does not give any right to the G 
respondent. An illegality cannot be perpetuated; [Paras 
11, 12] [1159-C-E] 
State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal 2011 (2) SCC 429 and 
State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 - relied on. 
H 
i 
I 
I 
4 
1156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
3. Also, it is well-settled that a temporary employee 
has no right to the post. The respondent's service was 
not terminated as a measure of punishment. Hence no 
opportunity of hearing was necessary for terminating her 
service. The direction for her reinstatement is not 
B sustainable as she was only a temporary employee and 
hence had no right to the post. The impugned judgment 
and order of the High Court is set aside and the writ 
petition is dismissed. [Paras 13, 14) [1159-F·H] 
C 
State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 
691 - relied on. 
D 
E 
Case Law Reference: 
2011 (2) sec 429 
(2006) 4 sec 1 
{1991) 1 sec 691 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on 
• Para 12 
. . 
Para 12 
Para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1017 of 2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.2003 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 
1213 of 1999. 
F 
S.R. Singh, Niranjana Singh and Prema Singh, Prema 
Singh for the Appellants. 
G 
Dinesh Kumar Garg for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. This appeal has been filed 
against the judgment and orde_r date
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.