Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MR. SANTOSH KUMAR VERMA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN,
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/01/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of
the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, made on
11.09.1996 in LPA No. 788/95.
The admitted position is that the appellants came to be
appointed as Assistant Engineers on daily wages @ Rs.40/-
per day on November 16, 1987. Subsequently, they were placed
in the pay scale of Rs.880-1510/- per month, They came to be
selected by conducting examinations and the appointments,
accordingly, came to be made. An attempt was made by 2nd
respondent, Regional Development Authority to regularise the
service and the proposal was sent to the Government for
acceptance. The Government accepting the proposal had
referred the Public service Commission did not agree to the
regularisation of their services, the appellants filed writ
petition in the High Court for a mandamus directing the
authority to regularise their services. The High Court in
the impugned order refused to give directions, Thus, this
appeal by special leave.
Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants, contends that Section 6(3) of the Bihar
Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 ( for short, the
‘Act’ ) gives power to the Authority to appoint the
Secretary and other officers and employees of the Authority.
Under proviso thereto, the appointing Authority has the
power to appoint any person for a period not exceeding six
months on any post carrying the minimum salary of Rs. 500/-
and above after approval of the State Government and the
appointment though for six months will be on regular basis.
The authority has not made any statutory rules for the mode
of recruitment. The advertisement did not indicate that
these were temporary appointments. Therefore, the appellants
are entitled to be regularised in the service. We find no
force in the contention.
Section 6(3) of the Act only empowers the Authority to
appoint the Secretary, and other officers and employees of
the Authority. The power under the proviso is only a
breathing elbow power given to the Authority to make
temporary appointments so that the work of the Development
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Authority goes on pending recruitment. Therefore, when the
advertisement was made for the recruitment, it was obviously
in furtherance of the recruitment, it was obviously in
furtherance of the power flown under the proviso for a
limited period. Thereby, the appointments obviously are only
temporary appointments had sought assistance of the
Government for regularisation which was negatived by the
Public Service Commission. It is seen that these posts are
within the purview of the Public Service Commission.
Therefore, the Government sought the concurrence of the
Public Service Commission and the Public Service Commission
had not concurred and, in our view, correctly with the
request made by the Government. Therefore, any
regularisation in violation of the recruitment to be made by
the Public Service Commission is in contravention of the
law. The High Court therefore, rightly did not issue any
mandamus for regularisation of the services made in
contravention of the Rules to violate and no mandamus or
direction would be issued to violate law.
The appeal is accrdingly dismissed. No costs.