UPENDRA SINGH versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 775 · Decided: 23-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
775
UPENDRA SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2356 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 23, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Service Law – Regularisation – When not valid – Appellant
was appointed in Grade III in non-teaching staff by respondent
No.8, a private college– Respondent no.8 was taken over by State
Govt. and became a ‘Constituent College’ of Bihar University,
whereafter though the appellant was absorbed but no salary was
paid –Writ petition thereagainst was dismissed by High Court – Plea
of appellant that by a resolution of State Govt. itself, as far back as
in 1991, decision was taken to regularise the services but benefit
thereof was not extended to appellant even when he fulfills all the
conditions contained in the said resolution – Held: Order dtd. 13
Aug. 2003 refusing regularisation specifically stated that the initial
appointment of appellant was not in accordance with law –
University or the Government had agreed to regularise the services
of those employees of the colleges, which had become the Constituent
Colleges, only on the condition that their initial appointment was
after following the due procedure and that too against the sanctioned
post – Impugned order calls for no interference.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The impugned judgment is without any blemish
and no interference is called for.  In fact, whole premise on which
the case is founded by the appellant seems to be incorrect. The
cases of persons including the appellant, were duly considered
by the University, on the basis of which order dated August 13,
2003 were passed refusing regularisation. This order specifically
stated that the initial appointment of the appellant was not in
accordance with law.  It was made without advertisement and
there was no recommendation of panel by the Selection
Committee.  So much so, the appointments were not made by
the competent authority.  The University, or for that matter, the
  [2018] 2 S.C.R. 775
   775
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
Government had agreed to regularise the services of those
employees of the colleges, which had become the Constituent
Colleges, only on the condition that their initial appointment was
after following the due procedure and that too against the
sanctioned post. [Para 7][780-D-F]
1.2 Law pertaining to regularisation has now been
authoritatively determined by a Constitution Bench judgment of
this Court in Umadevi case.  On the application of law laid down
in that case, it is clear that the question of regularisation of daily
wager appointed contrary to law does not arise.  This ratio of the
judgment could not be disputed by the counsel for the appellant
as well.  That is why she continued to plead that the appointment
of the appellant was made after following due procedure and in
accordance with law.  However, that is not borne from the records.
Pertinently, order dated August 13, 2003, vide which the appellant
was refused regularisation on the aforesaid ground was not even
assailed by the appellant at that time.  In Uma Devi, the Court
left a small window opened for those who were working on ad
hoc/ daily wage basis for more than ten years, to regularise them
as a one-time measure.  However, that was also subject to the
condition that they should have been appointed in duly sanctioned
post.  Further, while counting their ten years period, those cases
were to be excluded where such persons continued to work under
the cover of orders of the courts or the tribunal.  The High Court
has, in the impugned judgment, discussed these nuances and had
also referred to the judgment in Uma Devi and held that the benefit
of one-time measure suggested in that case could not be
extended to the appellant. [Para 8][780-G-H; 781-A-C]
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors.
(2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 – followed.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 3 SCR 953
    followed
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal No. 2356
of 2018.
From the Order dated 25.07.2013 of the High Court of Judicature
at Patna in LPA No. 447 of 2013.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
777
Meera Mathur, Adv. for the Appellant.
Subhro Sanyal, Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Binu Sharma, Ms. Purnima
Krishna, Siddharth Garg, Ajay Kumar Talesara, Atul Jha, Sandeep Kumar
Jha, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. The appellant herein has challenged the
judgment dated July 25, 2013 passed by the High Court of Judi

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