Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
P. RAVINDRAN & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/10/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
The special leave petitions arise from the orders of
the Administrative Tribunal made on February 20, 1996 in OA
No.290/95 and batch. The petitioners were appointed as
Lecturers on ad hoc basis and some of them had obtained
M.Phil, Ph.D. also. When the regular recruitment through the
Public Service Commission [the "Commission", for short] was
conducted, the petitioners also appeared before the
Commission but they were not selected. Subsequently, the
petitioners filed petitions for regularisation of their
services. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has pointed
out that since posts are required to be filled up by
recruitment from the open market through the Commission, the
Tribunal has no power to issue direction to regularise the
services. Thus, these special leave petitions.
Shri K.M.K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners,
contended that the petitioners are postgraduates, M.Phil and
Ph.D, and they are highly qualified and have acquired
experience from 1987 as lecturers. When they were appointed,
number of vacancies were available. Since they have been
working since 1987, they require to be regularised by
suitable directions. We find no force in the contention. The
admitted position is that the Commission having been
entrusted with the constitutional duty to select suitable
candidates by inviting applications from the open market,
every candidate has a fundamental right to seek
consideration and for selection through open competition.
The petitioners also have that right. At one time, they
staked their claims but were not selected. Therefore, the
process of recruitment through the Commission, as envisaged
under the Constitution, cannot be bypassed by issuing
direction for regularisation of the services of the ad hoc
persons who had come to the service through back-door entry.
This Court in catena of decisions has deprecated this
practice of regularisation except in extra-ordinary cases by
directing the Government to frame a scheme and regularise
Class III and IV services in accordance with the scheme.
Even in subsequent decisions, that leverage is not being
insisted upon. This Court in J & K Public Service Commission
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
& Ors. vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors. [(1994) SCC (L & S)
723] had held that the Court cannot adopt hybrid process of
direction to regularise the services bypassing process of
selection envisaged under the Constitution. This Court has
deprecated the Government for exercising the power under
Article 320 of the Constitution taking out the posts from
the purview of the Commission and to regularise services de
hors the Commission. Under those circumstances, we are of
the view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim to
grant the relief sought for.
The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed
subject to the benefit of relaxation of age bar till the
date of next recruitment so as to consider the cases of the
petitioners along with open candidates.