STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus MOHD. SULEMAN SIDDIQUI

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 12-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
v.
MOHD. SULEMAN SIDDIQUI
(Civil Appeal Nos.4262-4263 of 2015)
FEBRUARY 12, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Labour Laws: Regularisation – Claim of – Respondents
engaged as registration clerks on daily wages – Respondent’s case
that his appointment was on a regular basis and not as a daily
wager – Proceedings before the High Court and this Court – On
remand to the High Court to consider whether the appointment made
were in consistent with r. 22, the High Court holding that the
appointment was not in breach of r. 22, set aside the termination
and issued directions for grant of consequential benefits – On
appeal, held: Record clearly indicate that the engagement of the
respondent at all material times was only as a daily wager and,
there is no order by which he was treated to be in the regular service
of the District Registrar – He has no vested right to claim
regularization in service – Plea for regularisation has, in fact been
rejected in the judgment of the Division Bench – Order of the Single
Judge, quashing the rejection of the representation of the respondent
will not amount to a mandamus to regularize the respondent or to
treat him in the regular employment of the State – All that the High
Court will be construed to have held is that once the respondent
was reinstated in service following the earlier order, his services
could not have been dispensed with without an order of termination
in accordance with law – In the absence of an order of termination,
the respondent may be treated to be in the employment of the State,
albeit on a daily wage basis – Furthermore, his services were
discontinued due to the pendency of a criminal case – Subordinate
Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules 1985 – r. 22.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The initial appointment of the respondent in
pursuance of the proceedings of the Departmental Selection
   [2019] 4 S.C.R. 590
    590
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
591
Committee held on 24 February 1991, was on a daily wage basis.
The Minutes categorically indicate that against the six posts
available for selection against regular vacancies, the Committee
selected six candidates and indicated the names of two more
candidates having regard to the probable vacancies which were
likely to arise during the recruitment year. However, the Selection
Committee noted that the office of the District Registrar had
engaged daily wagers as registration clerks. Eleven such persons
were engaged, including the respondent. Before this Court, it
was asserted by the State that the respondent was not engaged
on a regular basis. The respondent contended that his
appointment was on a regular basis and not as a daily wager. This
Court remanded the proceedings to the High Court for
considering whether the appointment was made in a manner
consistent with Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial
Staff (District Recruitment) Rules 1985. The High Court
concluded that the appointment was not in breach of Rule 22 of
the Rules.  Consequently, the order of termination was set aside
with a direction for grant of consequential benefits. There is no
finding of fact to the effect that the appointment of the respondent
was on a regular basis. The record clearly indicates that the initial
engagement was only on a daily wage basis. [Para 16] [597-E-H;
598-A-B]
1.2 The services of the respondent were discontinued due
to the pendency of a criminal case. This led the respondent to
institute fresh proceedings, in which, there was an interim order
in his favour. However, the significant fact which emerges from
the record is that the engagement of the respondent at all material
times was only as a daily wager and, there is no order by which he
was treated to be in the regular service of the District Registrar.
The order by which the respondent was disengaged was
challenged before the High Court, which culminated in the
judgment of the Division Bench. [Para 17, 18] [598-B-D]
1.3 The status of the respondent at all material times has
been of a daily wage employee. He has not been appointed on a
regular basis. He has no vested right to claim regularization in
service. The plea for regularisation has in fact been rejected in
the judgment of the Division Bench. The order of the Single
Judge, quashing the rejection of the representation of the
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. MOHD. SULEMAN SIDDIQUI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G

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