Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
E. RAMAKRISHNAN & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/09/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
FAIZAN UDDIN (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The petitioners were appointed as Field Workers in the
Filaria Department of the State Government between 1981 and
1985. In the first instance, they had fixed W.P. No.250/92
and the High Court directed the Government to consider their
representation and dispose it of by judgment dated January
18, 1993. When they came to this Court, this Court directed
the Government to consider their cases in the Right of the
law laid down by this Court in State of Haryana Vs. Piara
Singh [(1932) 4 SCC 118]. Subsequently, since the Government
had not taken any steps, the petitioners fixed another writ
petition. In the meanwhile, the Public Service Commission
[PSC] had selected the candidates who were not being
appointed. Therefore, the selectees approached the High
Court and filed the writ petition. The petitioners also
filed the writ petition in the High Court seeking for
regularisation. The High Court in the impugned order dated
June 24, 1996 in O.P. No. 17422/93 dismissed the batch of
writ petitions filed by the petitioners allowed one writ
petitions filed by the selectees and directed the Government
to appoint the candidates selected through the PSC. It also
directed the Government to send the requisition to the PSC
to fill up the posts of 30 vacancies from the list of the
selected candidates prepared by the PSC. Thus this special
leave petition.
It is bought to be contended by Mr. M.M. Paikedav,
learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in the light
of the law laid down by this Court in Piara Singh’s case and
in view of the fact that the petitioners have been
continuing for more than 14 years, they are required to be
regularised. We find no force in the contention. Admittedly,
the posts are to be filled up through selection by PSC
recruitment norms. Necessarily, therefore, the requisition
was sent for selection through the PSC and candidates came
to be selected. Under those circumstances, the candidates,
who were found eligible and selected and recommended for
appointment by the PSC, were required to be appointed. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Court rightly had exercised the power in declining to
regularise the services of the petitioners.
The learned counsel sought to rely upon an order of the
Government where the Government had decided to regularise
the services of the employees. Obviously, since the decision
runs into the teeth of statutory requirement under Article
320 of the Constitution the Government cannot take any
decision contrary to the Constitution to regularise the
services of the candidates de hors the recruitment rules and
the statutory process for selection through the PSC. The
High Court, therefore, has rightly given direction to the
Government to notify 30 vacancies and odd or whatever may be
the vacancies existing to fill up from amongst the
candidates selected by the PSC.
It is then contended that the petitioners have turned
over-aged and, therefore, necessary direction may be given
to regularise their service by filling up the unfilled
posts. Even that relief also cannot be granted. If the
petitioners have turned over-aged on the date of
recruitment, it would be for the appropriate Government to
relax the age requirement and the petitioners have to stand
in the queue and get selection through the PSC. Thus that
they get in only the right to appointment to the post.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.