Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1187 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP(c) No.24124 of 2004)
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SRI G.V. CHANDRASHEKAR … RESPONDENT
WITH
C.A. Nos.1190-1247/2009 @ SLP(C) No.24985-25042/2004
C.A. No.1265/2009 @ SLP(C) No.12223/2006
C.A. Nos.1266-1270/2009 @ SLP(C) Nos.15115-15119/2004
C.A. Nos1271-1274/2009 @ SLP(C) Nos.16273-16276/2004
C.A. Nos1275-1283/2009 @ SLP(C) Nos.17865-17873/2004
C.A. Nos1284-1291/2009 @ SLP(C) Nos. 16527-16534/2004
C.A. No1292/2009 @ SLP(C) No.11893/2006
C.A. No.1293/2009 @ SLP(C) No.11894/2006
J U D G M E N T
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals involving similar questions of law and facts were taken
up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2
The short question which arises for consideration herein is as to whether the
respondents herein having been appointed on an ad-hoc basis could be
treated to have been regularized in their services.
We may notice individual fact of the matters before us:-
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.24124/2004
Respondent herein was appointed as a Typist on 5.9.1985 and worked
for more than ten years without break in service. Under these
circumstances, he sought direction from appellants herein to regularize his
services with all consequential benefits. His claim was denied by the
appellants. Aggrieved by the same, respondent approached the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal which by its order dated 22.9.2003 directed that the
question of regularization of the services of the respondent be examined by
the appellants with reference to records and decision thereon be taken
within 90 days thereafter. Challenging the order of the tribunal, appellant-
State approached the High Court which by its order dated 9.8.2004
dismissed the same and directed the appellant to consider the claim of the
respondent in terms of the judgment in Premakala Shetty vs. Common
Cadre Committee.
3
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.24985-25042/2006
Respondents were working in the Forest Department for over ten
years as gate watchman, driver, wireless operator and computer operator
and sought for regularization of their services from the authorities of the
department with all consequential benefits. Their claim was denied by the
appellants. Aggrieved by the same, respondents approached the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal which by its order dated 24.9.2003 directed that the
question of regularization of the services of the respondent be examined by
the appellants with reference to records and decision thereof may be taken
within 90 days. Challenging the order of the Tribunal appellant State
approached the High Court which dismissed the writ petition by reason of
an order dated 21.7.04 and directed the appellant to consider the claim of
the respondents following the judgment in Premakala Shetty vs. Common
Cadre Committee.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.12223/2006
4
Respondents were appointed as sweepers on 1.4.1980 and 29.4.1978
respectively and sought for regularization of their services with all
consequential benefits as they had put in more than ten years of service.
Their claim was denied by the appellants. Aggrieved by the same,
respondents approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which by its
order dated 10.1.2003 directed that regularization of the respondents be
made from the day they had completed 10 years of continuous service, as
against the posts on which they had been irregularly recruited, with all
consequential benefits. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, appellant
State approached the High Court, by filing a writ petition which dismissed
the writ petition by reason of an order dated 5.1.2004 directing it to consider
the claim of the respondents following the judgment in State of Karnataka,
By Secretary Forest Department, Bagalore and Ors. vs. T.B. Manjunath
and Ors. and Premakala Shetty vs. Common Cadre Committee.
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.15115-15119/2004
Respondents herein have been working as Forest Watchers for more
than 10 years, having been inducted as daily wagers. As their applications
5
for regularization was rejected by the appellants, they approached the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which by its order dated 19.12.2002
directed that in the event of respondents filing fresh application with
supportive evidence, their claim for regularization may be taken up and
appropriate orders thereon may be passed within three months from the date
of representation. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, appellant State
approached the High Court by filing a writ petition which rejected the writ
petition by reason of an order dated 28.1.04 and directing it to consider the
claim of the respondents following the judgment in State of Karnataka, By
Secretary Forest Department, Bangalore and Ors. vs. T.B. Manjunath and
Ors. and Premakala Shetty vs. Common Cadre Committee.
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.16273-16276/2004
Respondents have been working as mazdoors and sought for
regularization of their services having completed more than 10 years of
service. As their applications for regularization was denied by the
appellants, they approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which
by its order dated 24.7.2003 directed that the claim of the respondents be
6
examined and decided within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order
and in the event of having completed 10 years of service, on any subsequent
date, on any day prior to or after the date of filing of the application, the
appellants shall consider the claim for regularization. Challenging the
order of the Tribunal, appellant State approached the High Court, by way of
writ which was rejected by reason of order dated 28.1.2004 and directing it
to consider the claim of the respondents following the judgment in State of
Karnataka, By Secretary Forest Department, Bangalore and Ors. vs. T.B.
Manjunath and Ors. and Premakala Shetty vs. Common Cadre Committee.
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.17865-17873/2004
Respondents were appointed as forest watcher, literate Assistant and
Board Driver and sought for regularization of their services with all
consequential benefits. As their applications for regularization was denied
by the appellants, they approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal
which ordered on 11.11.2002 that the appellants shall consider the claim of
the respondents but subject to verification of the claim of their having
7
completed ten years of continuous service be examined and decided within
90 days from the date of receipt of the order. Challenging the order of the
Tribunal, appellant State approached the High Court by way of a writ
petition which was rejected by reason of order dated 12.1.2004 and
directing it to consider the claim of the respondents in terms of judgment in
State of Karnataka, By Secretary Forest Department, Bangalore and Ors. vs.
T.B. Manjunath and Ors. and Premakala Shetty vs. Common Cadre
Committee and directed to comply with the order within two months.
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 16527-16534/2004
Respondents herein were appointed as first division assistant,
stenographer, watchman and have approached the KAT for their
regularization of their services. The Tribunal by way of order dated 23.9.03
allowed the application of the respondents herein and directed compliance
within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order. Challenging the order
of the Tribunal, appellant State approached the High Court by way of a writ
8
petition which was rejected by reason of order dated 17.3.2004 and
directing it to consider the claim of the respondents.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.11893/2006
Respondent’s husband was appointed a Driver on 30.5.1980 and he
died on 15.8.92. Respondent sought for regularization of his services with
all consequential benefits. The Tribunal on 10.7.2003 relying upon the
decision on Bidu vs. State of Karnataka (ILR 2000 KAR 2405) directed to
pass appropriate orders within 90 days, including consideration of claim for
compassionate appointment. Challenging the order of the Tribunal the
appellants came up with a writ petition before the High Court which was
dismissed by reason of order dated 9.11.2004, placing reliance on State of
Karnataka vs. Karnataka Casual and Daily rated workers’ Union (ILR 2001
KAR 1178), Himachal Pradesh vs. Suresh Kumar [(AIR 1986 SC 1565] and
Randhir Singh, D.S. Nakara, Dharwad etc.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.11894/2006
Respondents herein were appointed as literate assistant, hand-pump
helper, typist and sought for regularization of services with all
9
consequential benefits from their authorities. The High Court dismissed the
writ petition filed by the State, which challenged the Tribunal’s order dated
09.06.2003 and directed the appellant to consider the claim of the
respondents.
3. Indisputably, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary. State of
Karnataka & ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1] having regard to
the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
opined that any appointment made in contravention of any recruitment rules
framed in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution
of India would be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, holding:
“26. With respect, why should the State be
allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge
in temporary employment in permanent posts?
This Court, in our view, is bound to insist on the
State making regular and proper recruitments and
is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the
persistent transgression of the rules of regular
recruitment. The direction to make permanent—
the distinction between regularisation and making
permanent, was not emphasised here—can only
encourage the State, the model employer, to flout
its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a
few at the cost of many waiting to compete. With
respect, the direction made in para 50 (of SCC) of
Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] is to some extent
inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 (of
10
SCC) therein. With great respect, it appears to us
that the last of the directions clearly runs counter
to the constitutional scheme of employment
recognised in the earlier part of the decision.
Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid
down the law that all ad hoc, temporary or casual
employees engaged without following the regular
recruitment procedure should be made permanent.
33. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions
of this Court on this aspect. By and large what
emerges is that regular recruitment should be
insisted upon, only in a contingency can an ad hoc
appointment be made in a permanent vacancy, but
the same should soon be followed by a regular
recruitment and that appointments to non-available
posts should not be taken note of for
regularisation. The cases directing regularisation
have mainly proceeded on the basis that having
permitted the employee to work for some period,
he should be absorbed, without really laying down
any law to that effect, after discussing the
constitutional scheme for public employment.
43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of
equality in public employment is a basic feature of
our Constitution and since the rule of law is the
core of our Constitution, a court would certainly
be disabled from passing an order upholding a
violation of Article 14 or in ordering the
overlooking of the need to comply with the
requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of
the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the
scheme for public employment, this Court while
laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that
unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant
rules and after a proper competition among
qualified persons, the same would not confer any
right on the appointee. If it is a contractual
appointment, the appointment comes to an end at
the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or
appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the
same would come to an end when it is
discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee
11
could not claim to be made permanent on the
expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be
clarified that merely because a temporary
employee or a casual wage worker is continued for
a time beyond the term of his appointment, he
would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular
service or made permanent, merely on the strength
of such continuance, if the original appointment
was not made by following a due process of
selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is
not open to the court to prevent regular
recruitment at the instance of temporary
employees whose period of employment has come
to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very
nature of their appointment, do not acquire any
right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of
the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue
directions for absorption, regularisation, or
permanent continuance unless the recruitment
itself was made regularly and in terms of the
constitutional scheme. Merely because an
employee had continued under cover of an order
of the court, which we have described as “litigious
employment” in the earlier part of the judgment,
he would not be entitled to any right to be
absorbed or made permanent in the service. In
fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be
justified in issuing interim directions, since, after
all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is
found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to
mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately
no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an
interim direction to continue his employment
would hold up the regular procedure for selection
or impose on the State the burden of paying an
employee who is really not required. The courts
must be careful in ensuring that they do not
interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of
its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or
lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the
bypassing of the constitutional and statutory
mandates.”
12
While saying so, however, the Constitution Bench with a view to give
some relief to those employees in respect of whom the process of
regularization had been completed and by way of one time measure, held as
under :-
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa ,
R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred
to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly
sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and
the employees have continued to work for ten years or
more but without the intervention of orders of the
courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation
of the services of such employees may have to be
considered on merits in the light of the principles
settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and
in the light of this judgment. In that context, the
Union of India, the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a
one-time measure, the services of such irregularly
appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in
duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of
the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure
that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those
vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in
cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are
being now employed. The process must be set in
motion within six months from this date. We also
clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but
not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this
judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of
the constitutional requirement and regularising or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as per
the constitutional scheme.”
13
4. The question which arises for consideration herein is as to whether
having regard to the aforementioned law as laid down by the Constitution
Bench the respondents herein are entitled to any relief or not.
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants and Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, relied upon two orders passed
by this Court; one dated 17.11.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 3956 of 2001 -
Madanbi vs. Director of Horticulture & Ors., wherein all appeals have been
allowed following Umadevi (supra), whereas in order dated 19.2.2007 in
Civil Appeal No.838 of 2007 - State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. S.K. Halappa
& Ors. another Division Bench of this Court directed as under::-
“We have perused the order passed by the High
Court dated 29.3.2004 whereby the Division
Bench has directed that Government will consider
each case independently in accordance with law,
within ten weeks from today for regularization.
Suffice it to say that Respondent No.1 (herein)
was appointed on a daily wages and he continued
for quite some time and thereafter he filed writ
petition before the High Court for regularization
on permanent basis with all consequential benefits.
The High Court directed the State to consider the
case of Respondent No.1 in accordance with law
14
and within 10 weeks. Aggrieved against this
order, the State is in appeal by way of special
leave petition. We have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record. In our view,
the point involved in this appeal has been decided
by this Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi(3) and
Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. The regularization has
now been held to be bad in law. But certain
observations have been made in the aforesaid
judgment. Therefore, in the fitness of things, we
set aside the order of the High Court and remit the
matter back to the High Court for fresh
consideration in light of the law laid down in Uma
Devi’s case (supra)”
5. Our attention has also been drawn to the order dated 9.6.2003 passed
by the learned single judge of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in
Writ Petition Nos. 10332-10342 of 2003 (S-Reg) by Mr. Anatha Murthy,
which reads as under:-
“1. The respondents are directed to consider the
cases of the petitioners who have completed ten
years of continuous service for regularization
subject to the petitioners fulfilling the eligibility
criteria for the posts to which they seek
regularization.
2. In the event of any of the petitioners being
found not to have the qualification for
regularization to the post in which they are
15
presently working, they may be considered for
regularization to the next lower post for which
they have qualification or they should be given a
reasonable time for acquiring the qualification.
The respondents may not dispense their services
merely on the ground that they do not have
necessary qualification.
3. The respondents may also consider the
request of the petitioners for extension of regular
pay scales applicable to regular employees
discharging the same functions, wherever such pay
scales are not extended already.
4. The respondents are given three months
time from today to comply with the direction
given above.”
6. Interpretation of Para 53 in Umadevi’s case (supra) had come up for
consideration before this Court in a large number of decisions.
In Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees’ Union vs. Mineral
Exploration Corpn. Ltd. [(2006) 6 SCC 310] wherein this Court, while
following Umadevi (3) (supra), invoked para 53 of the said decision to
opine:
“39. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to decide
the claim of the workmen of the Union strictly in
16
accordance with and in compliance with all the
directions given in the judgment by the
Constitution Bench in Secy., State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi (3) (supra) and in particular, paras 53
and 12 relied on by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Union. The Tribunal is directed
to dispose of the matter afresh within 9 months
from the date of receipt of this judgment without
being influenced by any of the observations made
by us in this judgment. Both the parties are at
liberty to submit and furnish the details in regard
to the names of the workmen, nature of the work,
pay scales and the wages drawn by them from time
to time and the transfers of the workmen made
from time to time, from place to place and other
necessary and requisite details. The above details
shall be submitted within two months from the
date of the receipt of this judgment before the
Tribunal.”
However, in National Fertilizers Ltd. & ors. vs. Somvir Singh (2006)
5 SCC 493, this Court held:-
“23. The contention of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents that the
appointments were irregular and not illegal, cannot
be accepted for more than one reason. They were
appointed only on the basis of their applications.
The Recruitment Rules were not followed. Even
the Selection Committee had not been properly
constituted. In view of the ban on employment, no
recruitment was permissible in law. The
reservation policy adopted by the appellant had
17
not been maintained. Even cases of minorities had
not been given due consideration.
xxx xxx xxx
25. Judged by the standards laid down by this
Court in the aforementioned decisions, the
appointments of the respondents are illegal. They
do not, thus, have any legal right to continue in
service.
26. It is true that the respondents had been
working for a long time. It may also be true that
they had not been paid wages on a regular scale of
pay. But, they did not hold any post. They were,
therefore, not entitled to be paid salary on a
regular scale of pay. Furthermore, only because
the respondents have worked for some time, the
same by itself would not be a ground for directing
regularization of their services in view of the
decision of this Court in Umadevi(3)”
In State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Lalit Kumar Verma [(2007) 1 SCC 575],
this Court held:-
“20. The decision to implement the judgment
was evidently subject to the decision of this Court.
But, the Special Leave Petition is barred by
limitation. The question, inter alia , which arises
for consideration before us is as to whether we
should condone the delay or allow the respondent
to continue to occupy the permanent post.
18
21. The legal position somehow was uncertain
before the decision rendered by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra). It
has categorically been stated before us that there
was no vacant post in the department in which the
respondent could be reinstated. The State had also
adopted a policy decision regarding regularisation.
The said policy decision has also no application in
the case of the respondent. Even otherwise, it
would be unconstitutional being hit by Article 16
of the Constitution of India.”
In Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. Ranjodh Singh & ors.,
[(2007) 2 SCC 491], this Court held:-
“19. In the instant case, the High Court did not
issue a writ of mandamus on arriving at a finding
that the respondents had a legal right in relation to
their claim for regularization, which it was
obligated to do. It proceeded to issue the
directions only on the basis of the purported policy
decision adopted by means of a circular letter and,
as noticed hereinbefore, even a policy decision
adopted in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution
of India in that behalf would be void. Any
departmental letter or executive instruction cannot
prevail over statutory rule and constitutional
provisions. Any appointment, thus, made without
following the procedure would be ultravires.”
19
In Postmaster General, Kolkata & Others vs. Tutu Das (Dutta)
[(2007) 5 SCC 317], this Court held as under:-
“20 . The statement of law contained in para 53 of
Umadevi (3) cannot also be invoked in this case.
The question has been considered by this Court in
a large number of decisions. We would, however,
refer to only a few of them.
21 . In Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v.
Ranjodh Singh referring to paras 15, 16 and 53 of
Umadevi (3) this Court: (SCC pp. 500-01 paras
17-18)
“ 17 . A combined reading of the
aforementioned paragraphs would clearly
indicate that what the Constitution Bench
had in mind in directing regularisation was
in relation to such appointments, which
were irregular in nature and not illegal ones.
18 . Distinction between irregularity and
illegality is explicit. It has been so pointed
out in National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir
Singh in the following terms: (SCC pp. 500-
01, paras 23-25)
‘ 23 . The contention of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents that the appointments
were irregular and not illegal, cannot
be accepted for more than one reason.
They were appointed only on the
basis of their applications. The
Recruitment Rules were not followed.
Even the Selection Committee had
not been properly constituted. In view
of the ban on employment, no
recruitment was permissible in law.
The reservation policy adopted by the
appellant had not been maintained.
20
Even cases of minorities had not been
given due consideration.
24 . The Constitution Bench thought
of directing regularisation of the
services only of those employees
whose appointments were irregular as
explained in State of Mysore v. S.V.
Narayanappa , R.N. Nanjundappa v.
T. Thimmiah and B.N. Nagarajan v.
State of Karnataka wherein this Court
observed: [ Umadevi (3) case , SCC
p. 24, para 16]
“ 16 . In B.N. Nagarajan v. State
of Karnataka this Court clearly
held that the words ‘regular’ or
‘regularisation’ do not connote
permanence and cannot be
construed so as to convey an
idea of the nature of tenure of
appointments. They are terms
calculated to condone any
procedural irregularities and
are meant to cure only such
defects as are attributable to
methodology followed in
making the appointments.”
25 . Judged by the standards laid down
by this Court in the aforementioned
decisions, the appointments of the
respondents are illegal. They do not,
thus, have any legal right to continue
in service.’ ”
(See also State of M.P. v. Yogesh
Chandra Dubey and State of M.P. v.
Lalit Kumar Verma .)
21
The controversy, if any, in our opinion, has been given a quietus by a
three Judge Bench of this Court in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & ors.
[(2008) 10 SCC 1], holding:
“75. By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution,
the judgment of the Constitution Bench in
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) is
binding on all the courts including this Court till
the same is overruled by a larger Bench. The ratio
of the Constitution Bench judgment has been
followed by different two-Judges Benches for
declining to entertain the claim of regularization of
service made by ad hoc/temporary/ daily
wage/casual employees or for reversing the orders
of the High Court granting relief to such
employees – Indian Drugs and Pharamaceuticals
Ltd. v. Workmen [(2007) 1 SCC 408], Gangadhar
Pillai v. Siemens Ltd. [(2007) 1 SCC 533],
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. L.V.
Subramanyeswara [(2007) 5 SCC 326], Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh [(2007) 6
SCC 207]. However, in U.P. SEB v. Pooran
Chand Pandey (2007) 11 SCC 92 on which
reliance has been placed by Shri Gupta, a two-
Judges Bench has attempted to dilute the
Constitution Bench judgment by suggesting that
the said decision cannot be applied to a case where
regularization has been sought for in pursuance of
Article 14 of the Constitution and that the same is
in conflict with the judgment of the seven-Judges
Bench in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978)
1 SCC 248].”
22
The Court noticed that in U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chandra Pandey
(supra), this Court held:
“18. We may further point out that a seven-Judge
Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India has held that reasonableness and
non-arbitrariness is part of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It follows that the Government must
act in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner
otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution would be
violated. Maneka Gandhi case is a decision of a
seven-Judge Bench, whereas Umadevi (3) case is a
decision of a five-Judge Bench of this Court. It is
well settled that a smaller Bench decision cannot
override a larger Bench decision of the Court. No
doubt, Maneka Gandhi case does not specifically
deal with the question of regularisation of
government employees, but the principle of
reasonableness in executive action and the law
which it has laid down, in our opinion, is of
general application.”
(Emphasis supplied)
However, the said observations were not called for.
The Bench noticed several judgments/orders of different Benches
taking a view contrary to Uma Devi (3) (supra) to opine that those cases
23
were illustrative of non-adherence to the rule of judicial discipline which is
sine qua non for sustaining the system. It was opined:
“90. We are distressed to note that despite
several pronouncements on the subject, there is
substantial increase in the number of cases
involving violation of the basics of judicial
discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches
of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the
verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even
larger Benches by citing minor difference in the
facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has
become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to
constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have
grave impact on the credibility of judicial
institution and encourages chance litigation. It
must be remembered that predictability and
certainty is an important hallmark of judicial
jurisprudence developed in this country in last six
decades and increase in the frequency of
conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary
will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch
as the courts at the grass root will not be able to
decide as to which of the judgments lay down the
correct law and which one should be followed.
91. We may add that in our constitutional set up
every citizen is under a duty to abide by the
Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions.
Those who have been entrusted with the task of
administering the system and operating various
constituents of the State and who take oath to act
in accordance with the Constitution and uphold
24
the same, have to set an example by exhibiting
total commitment to the Constitutional ideals. This
principle is required to be observed with greater
rigour by the members of judicial fraternity who
have been bestowed with the power to adjudicate
upon important constitutional and legal issues and
protect and preserve rights of the individuals and
society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for
effective and efficient functioning of the judicial
system. If the Courts command others to act in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution
and rule of law, it is not possible to countenance
violation of the constitutional principle by those
who are required to lay down the law.
92. In the light of what has been stated above,
we deem it proper to clarify that the comments and
observations made by the two-Judges Bench in
U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra
Pandey (supra) should be read as obiter and the
same should neither be treated as binding by the
High Courts, Tribunals and other judicial foras nor
they should be relied upon or made basis for
bypassing the principles laid down by the
Constitution Bench.”
We feel bound by the observations made therein. Initial recruitment
of the respondents being wholly illegal and contrary to the constitutional
25
scheme of this country, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be
upheld. It is set aside accordingly.
7. In the light of the decision in Uma Devi (3) (supra) and the
interpretation given to Para 53 therein by this Court in the abovementioned
judgments, the appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
……………..…………J.
[S.B. Sinha]
.………………….……J.
[Cyriac Joseph]
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 25, 2009