GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR ETC ETC vs. TAMIL NADU MAKKAL NALA PANIYALARGAL AND ORS ETC ETC

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10563­10569 OF 2017 THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. ETC. ETC. ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS TAMIL NADU MAKKAL NALA PANIYALARGAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. ….RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10570 OF 2017 J U D G M E N T Rastogi, J. 1. The instant appeals have been preferred at the instance of State of Tamil Nadu assailing the impugned judgment and order Signature Not Verified th passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dated 19  August, Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2023.04.11 18:15:08 IST Reason: rd 2014   affirming   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   dated   23 1 January,   2012   in   its   jurisdiction   under   Article   226   of   the Constitution directing the  State  Government to create  the  posts under the designation “Village Level Workers” which is called as “Makkal Nala Paniyalargal” (hereinafter being referred to as “MNP”) or by any other name but shall accommodate the persons who were on the rolls of MNP on the date of issuance of G.O.M No. 86 dated th 8   November,   2011   against   any   vacant   post   in   the   State Government   schools,   village   Panchayats,   town   Panchayats, Municipalities, Corporations, Collector Office, village offices or any other Government offices and undertakings of the Government of Tamil Nadu throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, according to the qualification possessed by each candidate, without reference to age in their native, taluk or revenue District.   It was further directed that if any one of the MNP who could not be accommodated or is ineligible, the State Government shall pay last drawn salary for the st st period from 1  December, 2011 to 31  May, 2012. 2. The brief facts of the case culled out from the record and relevant for the present purpose are that the Government of Tamil nd Nadu introduced a scheme dated 2  September, 1989 through the 2 Rural Development Department in the Budget speech of 1989­1990 providing employment to the educated youth in rural areas who th have   completed   10   standard   for   various   items   of   work   in   the village panchayat that can be entrusted to the unemployed youth and took a decision to implement the scheme at the village level and to engage at least two village level workers ­ one male and one female ­ who would be engaged in each of the village panchayats in the State.   Thus, a total of 25,234 workers were to be engaged throughout the State on a monthly honorarium of Rs.200/­ and it entrusted   separate   responsibilities   to   male   and   female   workers. The Government also adopted a mechanism to be implemented at the   local   area   where   the   appointments   are   to   be   made   for male/female   workers   at   village   panchayat   level   for   keeping   the transparency while making appointment of unemployed educated youth. 3. It   manifests   from   the   record   that   persons   were   appointed under the scheme introduced by the State Government under its nd policy   dated   2   September,   1989.     Later,   the   scheme   was th disbanded by the Government by order dated 13  July, 1991 on the 3 premise that the appointments made of MNP are in no way helpful for   the   execution   of   programmes   at   village   level   except   causing additional expenditure of Rs.6 crores per annum to the Government and left the execution of various developmental activities concerned through extension officers at block level. 4. In   consequence   thereof,   the   persons   who   were   engaged   as nd MNP   pursuant   to   policy   decisions   of   the   Government   dated   2 September, 1989, their services stood terminated/discontinued.   5. Again, by GO of the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj th Department   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “Department”)   dated   24 February, 1997, the scheme was restored by the Government in the Budget for the year 1996­1997 for providing employment to 25,000 youths on the terms and conditions earlier introduced pursuant to nd Circular dated 2  September, 1989, on an honorarium of Rs.500/­ per month for two MNPs in each village panchayat(one male and one female) for assisting in the maintenance of village assets and libraries & implementation of adult literacy programme in villages. 6. The   policy   decision   of   the   Government   which   was   earlier nd introduced by Order dated 2   September, 1989 for all practical 4 purposes and later restored by the Government vide order dated th 24  February, 1997 was again disbanded with immediate effect by st order dated 1   June, 2001.   The Government again revived the services of MNP and increased the honorarium from Rs.500/­ per month   to   Rs.750/­   per   month   with   an   addition   of   Rs.50/­   per th month as travelling allowance by order dated 12  June, 2006 with a clear understanding that persons who are re­engaged as MNP will st st not be entitled for any payment from 1   June, 2001 to 31   May, 2006 as they were not in service. th 7. At this point of time, in furtherance of order dated 12  June, th 2006, the Department vide its order dated 5  December, 2006 came out   with   a   scheme   to   appoint   those   who   were   appointed   as Panchayat   Assistants   and   Part   Time   Clerks   working   in   village Panchayat and that they will be switched over to scale of pay with st effect from 1   September, 2006.   The Department issued a G.O. th dated   27   November,   2008   stating   that   the   Government   will consider   filling   up   50%   of   vacant   posts   arising   in   the   cadre   of Record Clerk/Office Assistant/Night Watchman and equivalent post from MNP.   The District Collectors were directed to prepare the 5 estimated available vacancies so that MNPs could be accommodated to the extent possible. 8. It   has   come   on   record   that   in   the   interregnum   period, approximately 600 MNPs were absorbed in the State of Tamil Nadu in various village panchayats as Office Assistants/Night watchman. st Pending   absorption,   by   an   order   dated   21   May,   2010,   the st Department directed the MNPs to continue for two years from 1 st June, 2010 till 31  May, 2012. 9. Before their term could expire, the Government again issued th order dated 8   November, 2011 to disband MNPs with immediate effect on the premise that that there is surplus staff in panchayat units at village panchayat level to look after the works presently being looked after by MNPs and, therefore, a decision was taken to disband   the   post   of   MNP   which   will   save   approximately   Rs.73 crores. th 10. The   order   passed   by   the   Government   dated   8   November, 2011   pursuant   to   which   the   scheme   was   disbanded   and   in consequence   thereof,   MNPs   who   were   working   stood disengaged/terminated,   came   to   be   challenged   by   the   MNPs 6 through their associations by filing of a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ rd petition by a common order dated 23   January, 2012 and while th quashing the order dated 8  November, 2011 directed the State of Tamil Nadu to reinstate the members of the associations who have served as MNP.  The order of the learned Single Judge came to be challenged   by   the   appellants   in   writ   appeal   which   came   to   be th dismissed   under   the   order   impugned   by   judgment   dated   19 August, 2014 with the following directions:­ (i) The  State  Government   is   directed  to  consider   creation   of posts either in the name of MNP or in any other name to propagate the evils of consumption of liquor as contemplated under Article 47 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 10(5) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 for accommodating MNP. (ii) If   the   same   is   not   possible   on   any   account,   the   State Government shall accommodate the persons who were on the rolls of MNP on the date of issuance of G.O.Ms No. 86 dated   8.11.2011   in   any   one   of   the   vacant   post   in Government schools, village Panchayats, town Panchayats, Municipalities,   Corporations,   Village  Offices,   Taluk   Offices and   Collector   Offices   and   in   various   other   Government Offices and Undertakings of the Government of Tamil Nadu throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, or in any post as may be created for implementing the new schemes introduced in 2014­2015 Budget and accommodate the MNP, according to the   qualification   possessed   by   each   candidate,   without reference to age in their native Taluk or Revenue District. 7 (iii) The   said   exercise   shall   be   commenced   immediately   and completed on or before 31.10.2014. (iv) If   any   one   of   the   MNP   who  could   not   be   accommodated within   the   said   period   as   stated   supra,   though   they   are eligible to be accommodated, the State Government shall pay last   drawn   salary,   which   they   have   lastly   received,   from 1.11.2014 till they are accommodated in any of the vacant or newly created post. 12. At the same time, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the action of the State Government was per se mala fide th in passing the order dated 8  November, 2011 as directed in Para 33 was held to be unjustified and that became the subject matter of challenge in appeals before this Court. 13. On the first date of hearing when the matter was listed, while rd issuing   notice   on   23   September,   2014,   the   operation   of   the th judgment and order dated 19  August, 2014 came to be stayed by this Court. 14. It   is   brought   to   the   notice   of   this   Court   that   the   State th Government has introduced the scheme dated 7   June, 2022 to provide employment to the educated unemployed youth under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme to engage one person for one panchayat to fill up on certain conditions 8 or such of the unemployed youth on priority who had discontinued th as MNP pursuant to order passed by the Government dated 8 November, 2011 on monthly wages of Rs.7500/­ per month.   15. It is informed to this Court that majority of the persons who th were discontinued pursuant to the order dated 8  November, 2011 and who otherwise fulfil the  conditions  of eligibility have joined th under the scheme introduced by the Government dated 7   June, 2022.  Out of the total number of 13,500 MNPs, majority of them have joined and 489 MNPs have not opted the new policy despite opportunity being afforded by this Court. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that creation and abolition of posts rests with the Government and is a matter of Government policy, which can always be exercised in the interest and necessity of internal administration and the Court would be the least competent in the face of scanty material to decide whether the Government   acted   bonafidely     in   creating   a   post  or   refusing   to create a post or its decision suffers from malice (legal or factual) and as long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good faith, interference by the Court was not warranted. 9 17. The abolition of post is not a personal penalty against the individual who has served and is an executive decision and the Doctrine of Estoppel will not be applicable against the State in its governmental, public or sovereign function and the only exception is that where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. 18. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   these   are   not   the appointments   made   under   the   establishment   of   the   State Government against the cadre post whose service conditions are governed by the service rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.  The present appointments are made only for the purpose of providing employment to educated youth in rural areas to work as MNP in implementation of various programmes at the village level on an honorarium which has been revised from time to time.   19. The appointments are although made through a process held in the local area through the Committee constituted so that the large   number   of   candidates   who   are   inclined   to   seek   an appointment, there must be some mechanism in place by which candidates   could   be   shortlisted   to   offer   appointment.     Such 10 appointments   made   have   no   co­relation   with   the   appointments made by the State Government under its regular establishments in terms of the recruitment rules which are prescribed for various State/subordinate   services.     Thus,   no   right   could   have   been conferred/vested in favour of the individual and that apart, the Government   has   reviewed   the   whole   scheme   by   introducing employment   scheme   for   rural   educated   mass,   to   meet   the appointments   earlier   made   and   since   they   are   discontinued   by th order   dated   8   November,   2011,   the   present   Government th voluntarily   came   out   with   the   scheme   dated   7   June,   2022   to consider such of the unemployed youth who had discontinued to work in the village panchayat as MNP, for almost a decade by that time,   be   given   priority   and   may   be   engaged   under   the   Central Government   scheme,   which   was   framed   under   the   Mahatma Gandhi   National   Rural   Employment   Guarantee   Act, 2005(hereinafter   being   referred   to   as   the   “Act   2005”)   on   an honorarium of Rs. 7500/­ per month and the State also voluntarily came forward that as their appointment was earlier discontinued, st st thus for a period of 6 months, i.e. 1  December, 2011 to 31  May, 11 2012, each of the employee who discontinued and is not interested in seeking re­engagement under the present scheme can always accept his 6 months’ wages for the respective period.   20. Learned counsel submits that majority of them have received their  wages   by  this   time  but the  miniscule  of   persons   who are contesting   today,   either   have   not   encashed   or   have   repaid   the money back to the Government and submits that those who are left out and have not joined so far under the present scheme introduced th by the Government dated 7  June, 2022, although as per timelines introduced, no fresh engagement can be made but earlier this Court permitted the persons who were disengaged to join and become member of the scheme, still the Government has kept it open and the persons who would like to join, they are always at liberty to re­ th join in terms of the scheme introduced dated 7   June, 2022 and those   who   are   not   inclined,   can   always   accept   their   6   months’ st st wages for the period from 1  December, 2011 to 31  May, 2012 at any point of time from the Office of the District Collector if they have not already received so far. 12 21. In support of the submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the recent judgment of this Court in  State of Gujarat 1  Vs.   wherein taking note of and Others R.J. Pathan and Others the earlier judgment, this Court has expressed that appointments which   are   made   for   a   fixed   term   and   on   a   fixed   salary   in   a temporary unit which was created for a particular project, they are not entitled to seek regularization and if such a direction is issued by the High Court for absorption/regularization of the employees who were appointed in a temporary unit which was created for a particular project, are held not in conformity with law and such orders passed by the High Court for regularization, in the facts and circumstances, have not been countenanced by this Court. 22. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents,   while supporting   the   finding   returned   by   the   High   Court   under   the impugned   judgment  submits   that  their   fate   of   appointment  has always been dependent upon elected Government in power.   One Government   came   with   a   scheme   to   provide   employment   the 1 2022(5) SCC 394 13 successive Government has disbanded the policy introduced by its predecessors which appears to be only for political reasons.   23. The consistent policy which has come on record is in itself an indicator to show that as and when decision was taken to abandon or abolish the scheme, it was only for political reasons and not based on any substantial or valid reason on record.   In the given facts and circumstances, the decision of the High Court in setting th aside the order dated 8   November, 2011 was valid and justified and such impugned action of Government was indeed in violation of Articles  14,   16   and   21   of   the   Constitution   of   India   and   rightly interfered by the High Court under the impugned judgment. 24. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   there   are   consistent judgments of this Court where the employees have been allowed to continue  for sufficient long time without the intervention of the Court.     This   Court   always   comes   forward   to   regularize   such employees who had worked uninterruptedly for sufficient long time and that can be traced out from the judgment of this Court in the case of  Vs.  Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others  Umadevi 14 2 (3) and Others   which has been later followed by this Court in 3   Vs.   and Nihal Singh and Others State of Punjab and Others   further reiterated by this Court in  Malathi Das(Retired) now P.B. 4 .  Taking assistance Mahishy and Others  Vs.  Suresh and Others from the judgments of this Court, learned counsel submits that the High Court has rightly, in the given facts and circumstances, set th aside   the   order   dated   8   November,   2011   and   in   consequence thereof, such of the employees who discontinued because of the policy being disbanded/cancelled by the Government by order dated th 8  November, 2011 in sequel deserve to be regularized either on the post of MNP or any other post subject to availability.   The High Court was conscious of this fact that there are numerous number of posts where the respondent employees are eligible and they can easily be absorbed and thus, to protect their services which they have   rendered   for   sufficient   long   time,   they   have   rightly   been considered for regularization.   The finding which was recorded in the first place by the learned Single Judge and confirmed on legal 2 2006(4) SCC 1 3 2013(14) SCC 65 4 2014(13) SCC 249 15 principles by the Division Bench of the High Court, at least at this stage, needs no interference. 25. Learned counsel further submits that during the interregnum period between June, 2009 and November, 2011 until the order impugned came to be passed, the Government earlier came up with a scheme that such of the employees who are serving as MNPs may be absorbed into a regular post of Record Clerk/Office Assistant/ Night   watchman   or   any   other   equal   cadre   post   against   50%   of st regular   vacancies   and   by   an   order   dated   1   June,   2009 approximately 600 MNPs were absorbed on various posts and since this has been discontinued/disbanded by successive Government th by order dated 8   November, 2011, the respondents who were in queue   and   waiting   for   their   absorption   were   deprived   of   their legitimate right of fair consideration and no reason was assigned by th the Government while passing the order dated 8  November, 2011 and merely because there was a change of guards, that in itself would not be a ground to abandon the scheme which was in vogue for a long time.   16 26. The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   took   a   conscious decision to protect the rights, interests and service conditions of such of the employees who have served for sufficient long time but discontinued because of the policy of the rival political groups.  But the fact is that the employees became its victim and that appears to th be the reason for which the impugned order dated 8   November, 2011 came to be passed and after they have been contesting their rights for almost more than a decade, at least, this Court in the interest   of   justice,   may   not   interfere,   in   the   peculiar   facts   and circumstances of the case. 27. Learned counsel, in alternative, submits that if this Court is not inclined to consider their submission, at least the employees who   have   not   been   able   to   take   employment   so   far,   may   be permitted   to   accept   their   6   months’   honorarium   for   the   period st st between 1   December, 2011 and 31   May, 2012 which comes to principal   amount   of   Rs.25,851/­   per   MNP,   at   least,   with   a reasonable interest, as may be considered to be appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17 28. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 29. If   we   look   into   the   scheme   originally   introduced   by   the nd Government by Order dated 2  September, 1989, the object of the scheme was to provide employment to the educated youth in rural th areas who have completed 10   standard in implementing several programmes of the Government at the village level which require continuous effort for successful completion.  After Government has identified such programmes, they can be entrusted to a village work force of unemployed educated youth for better implementation.  The Government took a decision that there should be two village level workers ­ one male and one female ­ who will be engaged in each of the   village   panchayat.     They   will   be   called   Makkal   Nala Paniyalargal(MNP) and be engaged on an honorarium of Rs.200/­ per month in the first instance. 30. As far as how the appointment has to be made, a mechanism was put in place that such employees who are in the age bracket of th 18 to 30 years with educational qualification of 10  standard (and those   who   are   working   in   hill/tribal   areas,   their   educational 18 th qualification can be relaxed to 8  standard), their recruitment shall take   place   through   an   advertisement   in   the   local   area   and   be considered by a Committee for shortlisting the candidates to be considered for appointment.   The mechanism which was put in nd place in the first instance, by order dated 2  September, 1989 has looked into various rough weather.  It reveals from the record that as and when there was change of political scenario, the successive political party always disbanded/cancelled the policy decision of its earlier Government in power which had introduced a scheme for offering employment to the educated unemployed youth. 31. This can very well be noticed from the records that the Scheme which was introduced by the Government for providing employment nd to educated unemployed youth in rural areas dated 2  September, 1989 came to be disbanded by the successive Government by order th dated   13   July,   1991   in   consequence   discontinued   the   service rendered by such unemployed youth.   Immediately thereafter, the successive elected Government restored its policy by order dated th 24   February,   1997   and   provided   employment   to   the   educated youth for rural development programmes in various schemes at the 19 village panchayat, be it for assisting in the maintenance of village assets and libraries, implementation of adult literacy programme in villages, for their social welfare and also to work for anti­liquor campaign.  Such of the youth which put in place to get themselves involved in the scheme introduced in the village panchayat came to st be disbanded by order dated 1   June, 2001.   Later, it was again th introduced by order dated 12   June, 2006 and their honorarium stood increased at later stages and their services stood extended by st st st order 21  May, 2010 for the period from 1  June, 2010 to 31  May, 2012.   But it appears that there was a change of guard in the interregnum   period   and   immediately   thereafter,   the   policy   was th disbanded   by   order   dated   8   November,   2011   which   was   the subject matter of challenge before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on behalf of the respondents. 32. It has to be noticed that for rural development, major focus of planning had been productive absorption of underemployed and surplus labour force of the rural sector.  In order to provide direct supplementary   wage­employment   to   the   rural   poor,   the   Central 20 Government came with a legislation, namely, Act 2005, with salient features as follows:­ (i) The objective of the legislation is to enhance the livelihood security of the poor households in rural areas of the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment to every poor household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.  (ii) The State Government shall, in such rural areas in the State and   for   such   period   as   may   be   notified   by   the   Central Government,   provide   to   every   poor   household   guaranteed wage employment in unskilled manual work at least for a period of one hundred days in a financial year in accordance with the provisions made in the legislation. (iii) Every State Government shall, within six months from the date of commencement of this legislation, prepare a scheme to give effect to the guarantee proposed under the legislation. (iv) The one hundred days of employment under the legislation will   be   provided   at   the   wage   rate   to   be   specified   by   the Central Government for the purpose of this legislation. Until such   time   a   wage   rate   is   specified   by   the   Central Government for an area, the minimum wage rate fixed by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for agricultural labourers shall be considered as the wage rate applicable to that area. (v) If   an   eligible   applicant   is   not   provided   work   as   per   the provisions of this legislation within the prescribed time limit, it will be obligatory on the part of the State Government to pay unemployment allowance at the prescribed rate. (vi) A   Central   Employment   Guarantee   Council   at   the   Central level and State Employment Guarantee Councils at the State level in all States where the legislation is made applicable will   be   constituted   for   review,   monitoring   and   effective implementation of the legislation in their respective areas.   (vii) The Standing Committee of the District Panchayat, District Programme   Coordinator,   Programme   Officers   and   Gram Panchayats have been assigned specific responsibilities in 21 implementation of various provisions of the legislation at the Gram Panchayat, Block and District levels. (viii) The Central Government shall establish a fund to be called 'National Employment Guarantee Fund' for the purposes of this   legislation.   Similarly,   the   State   Governments   may constitute State Employment Guarantee Funds. (ix) Provisions   for   transparency   and   accountability,   audit, establishment of grievance and redressal mechanisms and penalty of noncompliance are also envisaged. (x) Provisions   for   Minimum   features   of   Rural   Employment Guarantee   Scheme   and   conditions   for   guaranteed   Rural Employment under a scheme and minimum entitlements of labourers have been laid. 33. Finally,   the   Act   was   introduced   to   provide   for   the enhancement of the livelihood and security of the poor households in rural areas of the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in the financial year to every poor household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work   and   for   matters   connected   therewith   or   incidental   thereto under the Act 2005.  The State of Tamil Nadu is also included in the Schedule appended to the Act, 2005. 34. Such applicant who is the head of the household or its other adult members who have applied for employment under the scheme be termed as an applicant to join in the projects for the purpose of 22 providing   employment   to   the   applicants   for   the   work   taken   up under a project as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act, 2005.  The expression   ‘scheme’   has   been   defined   under   Section   2(p)   which means   a   scheme   notified   by   the   State   Government   under   sub­ section (1) of Section 4. 35. Chapter II provides guarantee of employment in rural areas. Section 3 refers to guarantee of rural employment to households, the State Government has to provide to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work not less than one hundred days of such work in a financial year.   It further provides that every person who had done the work given to him under the Scheme shall be entitled to receive wages at the wage rate for each day of work on weekly basis or in any case not later than a fortnight after the date on which such work is done. 36. Chapter III takes note of employment guarantee schemes and unemployment allowance. 37. Section 4 provides that as for the purposes of giving effect to the provisions of Section 3, every State has to issue a notification to introduce a scheme for providing not less than one hundred days of 23 guaranteed employment in a financial year to every household in the   rural   areas   covered   under   the   Scheme   and   whose   adult members, by application, volunteer to do unskilled manual work. 38. What   will   be   the   conditions   for   providing   employment   are referred to under Section 5 of the Act, 2005.  The wage rate is to be fixed by the Central Government from time to time in terms of Section 6.  If an applicant for employment under the Scheme is not provided   such   employment   within   fifteen   days   of   receipt   of   the application   seeking   employment,   he   shall   be   entitled   to   a   daily unemployment allowance in accordance with Section 7. 39. Chapter IV notifies implementing and monitoring authorities at the central level by Central Employment Guarantee Council and at   the   State   level,   by   State   Employment   Guarantee   Council   as referred to under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act, 2005. 40. After the Act, 2005 came into force, such States which are notified in the Schedule as referred to under Section 1(3) of the Act, 2005 which includes the State of Tamil Nadu, the same was offered to the educated unemployed youth primarily under the Act, 2005. 24 41. It has not been disputed that the scheme undertaken by the State of Tamil Nadu under the Act, 2005 is still in force. 42. The practice adopted by the Government in the past of which a detailed reference has been made from 1989 onwards and to be more   specific,   after   the   introduction   of   Scheme   for   providing employment   to   the   educated   unemployed   youth   to   work   in   the nd village   panchayat   by   order   dated   2   September,   1989,   it   has undergone a change at various stages and forms. 43. We   cannot   afford   to   lose   democracy   in   our   country   by permitting the political parties empowered to overrule the wisdom of their political opponents with the use of State machinery. 44. So   far   as   the   object   behind   the   scheme   is   concerned,   it appears to be very laudable and at least in the interest of poor unemployed   educated   youth   by   providing   them   to   serve   on   the wages certified by the Government from time to time by providing employment   under   the   Scheme   introduced   by   the   State Government,   at   least   for   not   less   than   one   hundred   days guaranteed   in   a   financial   year   who   volunteered   to   do   unskilled manual work.   At the same time, while the policy decision of the 25 Government is always open to judicial review on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution and is ordinarily not to be interfered unless that is attached with legal or factual malice of the Government, however, in the instant case, the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the finding so far as the malice which was imputed by th the learned Single Judge in passing order dated 8  November, 2011 is concerned.  After going through the records, we are of the view th that the order dated 8  November, 2011 might have been passed as a policy decision of the Government but the seriatim of facts which have   come   on   record   at   least   cannot   be   countenanced   by   this Court. 45. The question which emerges for our consideration is whether th the order dated 8  November, 2011 is untenable in the eyes of law, such   employees   who   were   discontinued   are   eligible   for reinstatement and regularization of service?   46. Learned Single Judge and Division Bench in their impugned judgments   have   concurred   with   the   finding   that   such   of   the th employees who were discontinued by passing of the order dated 8 November, 2011 are not only entitled to reinstatement but deserve 26 to be regularised in service after creation of post. In   our considered view, what is being observed by the Division Bench of the High Court is not legally sustainable in law.    47. There cannot be a quarrel with the proposition that the Courts cannot direct for creations  of  posts.   In the case of   Divisional Manager Aravali Golf Club and Another  Vs.  Chander Hass and 5 , it has been held as under:­ Another

6 , this Court held as under:­ Sanghatana

5 2008(1) SCC 683 6 2009(8) SCC 556 27

49. The respondents were not in employment of the Government or holding a civil post and also not appointed against the cadre post in   any   of   the   Government   establishment   where   the   service conditions are governed/regulated by the statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. 50. In fact, the respondents were engaged in a scheme and were paid honorarium and we do find justification that as long as the scheme continues in the State of Tamil Nadu under the mandate of Act, 2005, at least there appears no reason to discontinue such persons who are working under the respective schemes undertaken by  the  Government   in   fulfilment   of   the   object   of   the   Act,   2005 unless the later found to be unsuitable for retention in service or has attained the age of superannuation. 51. But as already observed, such employees are not entitled for reinstatement and for regularization of service for the reason that if th the order passed on 8   November, 2011 is not sustainable, the respondents and other similarly situated persons engaged could be restored on the same terms as they were placed before passing of 28 th the   order   dated   8   November,   2011.     In   other   words,   as   their st placement was extended for two years by order dated 21   May, st st 2010 w.e.f. 1   June, 2010 to 31   May, 2012 at the best, such st persons could have been allowed to continue upto 31  May, 2012. In the absence of any further extension been granted, at least there was no right vested in favour of either of the person engaged to seek further continuance under the scheme thereafter. 52. So far as the impugned direction to the State Government for their   reinstatement   and   regularization   is   concerned,   in   our considered view, it is completely misplaced and not sustainable in law.    53. The Judgment of this Court relied upon in  Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others  Vs.  Umadevi (3) and Others  (supra) is in reference to such of the employees who were illegally/irregularly appointed in the establishment of the Government and their service conditions are governed under the statutory Rules framed but they have not gone through the process of selection as provided under their respective rules and were allowed to continue on ad­hoc basis for   almost   more   than   a   decade.     This   Court   deprecated   such 29 practice but as one time measure permitted the Government to regularize such employees who are working against the sanctioned post and permitted by the government without intervention of the Court as referred to under Para 53 of the judgment.  The same is reproduced hereunder:­

54. At the same time, this Court further observed that in absence of sanctioned post, the State cannot be compelled to create the post and absorb the persons who are continuing in service of the State. 30 55. In   Nihal Singh and Others (supra) on which heavy reliance has been placed, it was a case where appointments were made by the State Government under Section 17 of the Police Act, 1861. Since   their   appointments   were   under   the   Act,   1861   and   were allowed   to   continue   for   sufficient   long   time,   which   was   not considered   to   be   illegal   or   irregular   appointment,   this   Court considered it appropriate to observe that as they are allowed to continue   for   such   a   long   term,   they   deserve   regularization   of service.  In the instant case, the respondents were never appointed in   the   establishment   of   the   Government   against   a   regular sanctioned post, in the absence whereof, judgment may be of no assistance. 56. The   later   judgment   in   Malathi   Das(Retired)   Now   P.B. (supra) which has been relied upon, it was a case where Mahishy the employees were working on daily wage basis serving in different departments which are indeed Government establishments.  At one stage,   the   employees   approached   the   High   Court   claiming regularization of service and the High Court of Karnataka came to their rescue and directed the State Government to regularize service 31 of   such   employees   who   are   serving   on   a   daily   wage   basis   in Government departments and finally the SLP was dismissed by this Court.   Thereafter, contempt petitions were filed before the High Court and in two phases, the employees were regularized, in the first   and   second   phase   of   filing   contempt   petition   by   the incumbents concerned.  But few of the incumbents filed contempt petition   which   appears   to   be   the   third   phase,   they   were   not considered for regularization despite the order of the High Court being confirmed by this Court on dismissal of the special leave petition on the premise of the judgment of this Court in  Secretary, State   of   Karnataka   and   Others   Vs.   Umadevi   (3)   and (supra).  This Court was of the view that once the judgment Others of the High Court has been affirmed and in two phases on filing contempt petitions, employees have been regularized, there appears no   reason   to   deviate   and   take   away   the   claim   of   rest   of   the employees who are covered by the judgment of the High Court, may be the reason that there was a change in law on the subject after passing   of   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Secretary,   State   of 32 Karnataka and Others   Vs.   Umadevi (3) and Others (supra) and this is not the factual matrix in the instant case. 57. We are of the considered view that the direction of the High Court   to   reinstate   after   creating   the   posts   and   absorb   the respondents based on their qualification is not sustainable in law and deserves outright rejection.   58. This Court, in a recent judgment in   State of Gujarat and (supra) has considered the view expressed by us in paras 10 Others and 11 as follows:­ “10.  The Division Bench has also not appreciated the fact and/or considered the fact that the respondents were initially appointed for a period of eleven months and on a fixed salary and that too, in a   temporary   unit   —   “Project   Implementation   Unit”,   which   was created   only   for   the   purpose   of   rehabilitation   pursuant   to   the earthquake   for   “Post­Earthquake   Redevelopment   Programme”. Therefore, the unit in which the respondents were appointed was itself a temporary unit and not a regular establishment. The posts on which the respondents were appointed and working were not the   sanctioned   posts   in   any   regular   establishment   of   the Government. 11.  Therefore, when the respondents were appointed on a fixed term and on a fixed salary in a temporary unit which was created for a particular project, no such direction could have been issued by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   to   absorb   them   in Government   service   and   to   regularise   their   services.   The   High Court has observed that even while absorbing and/or regularising the services of the respondents, the State Government may create supernumerary posts. Such a direction to create supernumerary posts   is   unsustainable.   Such   a   direction   is   wholly   without jurisdiction. No such direction can be issued by the High Court for 33 absorption/regularisation of the employees who were appointed in a temporary unit which was created for a particular project and that too, by creating supernumerary posts.” 59. The justification has been tendered that such persons who have   not   been   re­engaged   by   the   State   Government   under   its th present   policy   dated   7   June,   2022   are   entitled   for   their st st honorarium for the period from 1   December, 2011 to 31   May, 2012, we make it clear that such of the employees who have not th joined pursuant to the scheme introduced by Government dated 7 June, 2022, they are always at liberty to accept their honorarium for the period of 6 months but as the Government has already offered   them   honorarium   earlier,   they   are   not   entitled   to   any interest on the said principal amount.   We are informed that the total amount  as  per   the  honorarium   of  MNP   fixed  at  that  time st st comes to Rs.25,851/­(1  December, 2011 to 31  May, 2012).  If an application is filed, the State Government may at least remit the money into the bank account of the individual. 60. We make it clear that such persons who have joined pursuant th to the scheme introduced by the Government dated 7  June, 2022 in fulfilment of the object of the Act, 2005 shall remain co­terminus 34 with the scheme and be allowed to continue as long as the scheme remain in force.   At the same time, such persons who have not th joined pursuant to the scheme dated 7   June, 2022, they are at liberty   to  accept  their   payments   for   the   intervening   period   of 6 st st months from 1  December, 2011 to 31  May, 2012 of the principal amount of Rs.25,851/­ to the MNP.   On such application being filed,   the   appellants   shall   make   over   the   money   to   such   MNP through RTGS or any other mode after due verification within three months. 61. In our considered view, the judgment passed by the Division Bench   of   the   High   Court   for   the   reasons   afore­stated   is   not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.   62. Consequently,   the   appeals   succeed   and   are   allowed.     The th judgment impugned dated 19   August, 2014 is hereby set aside with the observation afore­stated. No costs. 63. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ……………………….J. (AJAY RASTOGI) 35 ……………………….J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI) NEW DELHI; APRIL 11, 2023 36