LexSTATE OF U.P. versus NEERAJ AWASTHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF U.P. v. NEERAJ A WAS THI AND ORS. DECEMBER 16, 2005 B [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964: Sections 25-A, 26-A, 26-B and 26-X-Appointments-lrregular C appointments-Termination of-3395 posts were sanctioned for 244 Market Committees in the State-1021 employees were appointed between the period 1.4.1996 to 30.10.1997-State Agricultural Produce Market Board passed a resolution proposing regularization of services of those employees who had completed one thousand days of service-'-State directed cancellation of all D irregular appointments during the period 1.4.1996 to 30.10.1997 on last- come-jirst go basis-Services of a large number of employees were terminated on the ground that such appointments were unauthorized/irregular-Rules framed by Board for regularization of its employees not approved by State- But High Court held termination orders to be illegal and also directed State to formulate a scheme for regularization of those employees-Correctness E of-Held: If illegality had been committed in the past such illegality cannot be allowed to perpetrate-No equality can be claimed in illegality-When a post is not sanctioned directions for reinstatement should not be issued- Availability of vacancies and/or the fund by themselves would not allow the Market Committees or the Board to make appointments in flagrant violation p of the statutory provisions-High Court could not have issued a writ of or in the nature of mandamus as the writ petitioners did not have any legal right-High Court is not justified in directing the State to formulate a scheme for regularization of the employees-Hence, High Court'sjudgment set aside- Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralised) Services G H Regulations, 1961. In the State of Uttar Pradesh there were 244 Market Committees. Out of the sanctioned posts of3395, 1021 employees were appointed between the period 1.4.1996 and 30.10.1997. The U.P. State Agricultural Produce Market Board constituted under Section 26-A of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan 906 ST A TE OF U .P. v. NEE RAJ AW AS THI 907 Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 passed a resolution under Uttar Pradesh Agricultural A Produce Market Committees (Centralised) Services Regulations, 1961 proposing regularization of the services of those employees who have completed one thousand days of service. The appellant-State directed that the services of all such employees who had been irregularly appointed during the period 1.4.1996 to 30.10.1997 be B cancelled on last-come-first go basis. Pursuant to such direction the services of a large number of employees were terminated on the ground that their appointments were authorized/irregular. The appellant-State had also refused to approve the proposed rules framed by the Board for regularization of its employees. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the affected employees holding that the terminations were illegal. The High Court also issued a direction for framing a scheme for regularization of the said employees. Hence the appeal. The following question arose before the Court:- Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue a direction for framing a scheme for regularization of the employees of the U.P. State Agricultural Produce Market Board? Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The fact that all appointment have been marle without following the procedure or services of some persons appointed have been regularized c D E in the past cannot be said to be a normal mode which must receive the seal of the court. Past practice is not always the best practice. If illegality has been F committed in the past, it is beyond comprehension as to how such illegality can be allowed to perpetrate. The State of the U.P. State Agricultural Produce Market Board constituted under Section 26-A of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 were bound to take steps in accordance with law. Even in this behalf Article 14 of the Constitution of India will have no application. Article 14 has a positive concept. No equality can be claimed in G illegality is now well-settled. (933-G-H; 934-AJ State of MP. v. Dharam Bir, (1998) 6 SCC 165, Bangalore Developmer:it Authority v. R. Hanumaiah, (2005) 8 SCALE 80, Punit Raj v. Dinesh Chaudhary, (2003\ 8 SCC 204, Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma v. The Chancellor, H 908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.