SURENDRA PRASAD TIWARI versus UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 828 · Decided: 08-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SURENDRA PRASAD TIWARI 
Q 
v. 
UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD 
AND ORS. 
B 
SEPTEMBER 8, 2006 
[G.P. MATHUR AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
' 
Constitution of India-Articles 14, 16 and 309-Person employed on 
c 
contractual basis for a short period from time to time-Writ Petition by the 
person on termination of his services-Services of the person were continued 
under an interim order of the High Court-Writ Petition finally dismissed by 
the High Court-Plea of the person for regularisation of his services on 
ground of his working for a long period during the period of operation of 
the interim order-Validity of-Held, the services of a person cannot be 
D directed to be regularised as he was not appointed following the procedure 
laid down under Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitlllion-Person does 
not have a right to be absorbed merely because his services were continued 
under an interim order of a Court. 
Appellant was employed on contractual basis for a short period from 
E time to time as per the needs and exigencies of different projects undertaken 
by respondents. On termination of the services by the respondents, the 
appellant filed a Writ Petition before High Court. The High Court passed an 
interim order of stay in the Writ Petition. The High Court finally dismissed 
the Writ Petition. 
F 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the respondents 
are guilty of unfair labour practice by engaging him on contract basis without 
any security of tenure and continuing him for years on meagre wages for the 
works of perennial nature; and that he was working for· the respondents 
continuously for 14 years and hence he is entitled for regularisation in 
G services. 
The respondents contended that they continued with the services of the 
appellant for a long period only due to the interim order of the High Court; 
that the appellant was merely a temporary employee who was given employment 
H 
828 
.... ,, 
SURENORA PRASADTIWARI 1« UTT AR PRADESH RAJ\'A KRISHI UTPADAN MANOI PARISHAO 
829 
as per the needs and exigencies of different projects undertaken by them; A 
that the appointment of the appellant was not against any substantive post; 
and that the appellant was given fixed term appointments on contractual basis 
and his services were automatically terminated after expiry of the contract 
period. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. On careful analysis of the appointment orders giving 
contractual appointments to the appellant, it is revealed that the appellant's 
contractual appointment was for a fixed term for carrying out the work of a 
specified project. The appellant was engaged from time to time to work on 
different projects and thereafter the appellant was not appointed. The C 
appointment of the appellant was not made following; the procedure as laid 
down under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution oflndia. Adherence to 
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a must in the process of public 
employment. Admittedly the appellant has not been appointed in terms of the 
·relevant rules or in adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
[837-B-C; 841-F; 843-GJ D 
1.2. Our constitutional scheme clearly envisages equality of opportunity 
in public employment. The Founding Fathers of the Constitution intended that 
no one should be denied opportunity of being considered for public employment 
on the ground of sex, caste, place of birth, residence and religion. This part 
of the constitutional scheme clearly reflects strong desire and constitutional E 
philosophy to implement the principle of equality in the true sense in the 
matter of public employment. (846-B-C) 
1.3. In view of the clear and unambiguous constitutional scheme, the 
courts cannot countenance appointments to public office which have been made F 
against the constitutional scheme. In the backdrop of constitutional philosophy, 
it would be improper for the courts to give directions for regularization of 
services of the person who is working either as daily wager, ad hoc employee, 
probationer, temporary or contractual employee, not appointed following the 
procedure laid down under Article 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution. In our 
constitutional scheme, there is no room for back door entry in the matter of G 
public employment. [846-D-El 
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi, (3) and Ors., (20061 
4 SCC 1 CB; Indira Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1992) 

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