Facts
The petitioner claimed that he had worked on daily wages in the Sub-Divisional Office, Hajipur and other government offices from 15 January 1995 to January 1999, and possessed experience and character certificates supporting such engagement.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3Pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2010 for appointment to Group D/Class IV posts, he represented that he had worked as an attendant under government officials. A revised panel published in 2010 allegedly recorded his service as a daily-wage typist for 845 days and placed his name at serial no. 216/1999.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3The petitioner later submitted representations dated 09 February 2017 and 25 September 2017, claiming that the interim panel prepared pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2016 contained errors regarding his experience and total working days, and requesting correction of the panel.
Source reference: p. 2–3, paras. 3–4He also sought regularisation against a Group D post on the basis of his alleged long-standing service.
Source reference: p. 1–2, para. 2The State contended that the relief concerning Advertisement No. 01/2016 had become infructuous because the District Selection Committee, Vaishali, cancelled the vacancies advertised under that advertisement on 09 May 2018, following governmental directions and relevant orders of the Supreme Court and the Patna High Court.
Source reference: p. 3–5, paras. 5–8The respondents further relied on proceedings concerning implementation of the empanelment process in Mahesh Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar .
Source reference: p. 3–4, paras. 5–6Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to quashing or correction of the interim panel prepared pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2016 on the ground that his experience and total working days had been incorrectly recorded?
Source reference: p. 1–3, paras. 2–42. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularisation or absorption in a permanent Group D/Class IV post on the basis of his alleged daily-wage engagement since 1995?
Source reference: p. 1–2, para. 2; p. 9–12, paras. 18–21Law Applied
The Court applied the constitutional requirements of non-arbitrariness, equality and equal opportunity under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, holding that the State must act according to rational, fair and non-arbitrary standards when making public appointments or distributing public employment.
Source reference: p. 5–8, paras. 9–13Relying on Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India , (1979) 3 SCC 489, and Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu & Kashmir , (1980) 4 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that governmental action must conform to reasonableness and public-interest standards.
Source reference: p. 5–8, paras. 9, 13Under UPSC v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela , (2006) 2 SCC 482, public appointments require proper advertisement and a fair selection process open to all eligible candidates.
Source reference: p. 6–7, para. 11Relying on M.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav , (2007) 8 SCC 264, and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Court held that regularisation cannot be used as a mode of appointment, particularly where the initial engagement was made without advertisement, competitive selection or compliance with recruitment rules.
Source reference: p. 8–10, paras. 14–15The Court also relied on Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan , (2011) 12 SCC 85, concerning the prohibition against arbitrariness and undue favour in public appointments.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 16Reasoning
The challenge to the interim panel and Advertisement No. 01/2016 did not require adjudication because the District Selection Committee had already cancelled the vacancies advertised under that advertisement on 09 May 2018; consequently, the petitioner’s first relief had become infructuous.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8As to regularisation, the Court treated the petitioner’s alleged daily-wage engagement as a tenure-based appointment rather than a lawful appointment to a permanent post.
Source reference: p. 11, para. 19There was no material showing that his initial engagement had followed an open advertisement, prescribed recruitment rules, or a fair selection process giving other eligible persons an equal opportunity to compete.
Source reference: p. 12, para. 20Granting regularisation in those circumstances would bypass Articles 14 and 16 and unlawfully exclude other eligible candidates from consideration. Applying Uma Devi and the related authorities, the Court held that length of service or sympathy could not cure an appointment made through an irregular or back-door process.
Source reference: p. 8–12, paras. 14–21Holding
The Court held that the challenge concerning Advertisement No. 01/2016 and the interim panel had become infructuous because the advertised vacancies had already been cancelled.
It further held that the petitioner was not entitled to regularisation or absorption because his alleged daily-wage engagement was not shown to have resulted from a lawful, transparent and competitive recruitment process consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Source reference: p. 12, para. 21The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 12, para. 22Original Court PDF
Anand Kumar SinhavsThe State Of Bihar and Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
