THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PONDICHERRY KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD AND ANR. versus K. AROQUIA RADJA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 562 · Decided: 12-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2013) 4 S.C.R. 562 
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PONDICHERRY 
KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD AND ANR. 
v. 
K. AROQUIA RADJA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2323 of 2013) 
MARCH 12, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI, H.L. GOKHALE AND 
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] 
C 
Service Law - Co-terminus employees (respondents) -
Entitlement of, to continue in service after cessation of 
engagement of the person with whose engagement their 
services were made co-terminus - Held: Respondents were 
engaged only because their names were sponsored by the 
D Chairman of the Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries 
Board, a statutory body corporate - They did not come into 
the service either through the Employment Exchange or 
through any procedure in which they were required to 
compete against other eligible candidates - Also, the 
E respondents had been clearly told that their services were co-
terminus, and they will have no right to be employed thereafter 
- It was not permissible for them to challenge their dis-
engagement when the tenure of the Chairman was over -
Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1980 -
F 
ss.3 and 15. 
Service Law -
Recruitment -
Proper channel -
Requirement of - Held: The requirement of being employed 
through proper channel could not be relaxed in an arbitrary 
and cavalier manner for the benefit of a few persons - This 
G would be clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 
16. 
The Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board 
H 
562 
CHIEF EXEC. OFFR., KHADI & VIL. INDUS. BOARD 563 
v. K. AROQUIA RADJA 
is a statutory body corporate constituted under Section 
A 
3 of the Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board 
Act, 1980. The Chairman of the Board desired 
engagement of certain persons as his personal staff. 
There was no provision for any sanctioned post of 
personal staff in the Board, yet without obtaining the 
B 
names sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the 
said Chairman engaged five persons as his personal staff 
including the four respondents. In view of the persuasion 
of the said Chairman, the Government of Puducherry 
issued general orders appointing the respondents on co- c 
terminus basis and on a fixed scale of pay. Subsequently, 
the Chairman of the Board resigned from his 
chairmanship when his term expired, and thereafter, all 
the four respondents were relieved from their services. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeal is as to whether the respondents, who 
were appointed on a co-terminus basis had any right to 
continue in service after the cessation of the engagement 
of the Chairman of the Board with whose engagement 
their services were made co-terminus. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The respondents were engaged only 
because their names were sponsored by the then 
Chairman of the Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries 
Board. They did not come into the service either through 
D 
E 
F 
the Employment Exchange or through any procedure in 
which they were required to compete against other 
eligible candidates. The proposal which was sent to the 
Governor for his approval was not sent through the G 
normal routine of the concerned Administrative 
machinery, and through the Chief Secretary of 
Puducherry. Since the proposal was not routed through 
the normal channel of administration, the factual position 
with respect to the irregular employment of the 
H 
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A respondents could not be placed before the Governor. 
The relevant facts such as those relating to their initial 
engagement, availability of sanctioned posts in the same 
category in the Board, relevant rules for engagement of 
the employees etc. could also not be placed before the 
B Governor. Even so the proposal itself recorded that the 
respondents had put in just 3V. years of service, and the 
proposal to regularize them had been once turned down 
by the Government. Section 15 of the Board Act clearly 
laid down that the Board was bound by the directions 
c given by the Government in the performance of its 
function under the Act. The Governor was not supposed 
to act on his own, but with the aid and advice of the 
Council of Ministers. The question as to whether it will 
result into creation of additional posts and additional 
0 financial liability was required to be referred to the 
Government. Besides, the resolution only recorded the 
request of the

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