Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

B. Judgment of the High Court:

7. The aforesaid Notifications dated 16.06.2014, 18.06.2014 and 07.07.2014 were the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.17206 of 2014 by respondent  Nos.4 and 5 in Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024. Another batch of petitioners working on ad hoc basis sought the relief of regularisation in their writ petitions. The High Court considered all the writ petitions together and proceeded to hold that the impugned Notifications were bad in law inasmuch as they had the effect of violating the law laid down by this Court in its various decisions in the matter of regularisation of services of contractual/ad hoc/daily wage employees. It held that failure to resort to regular mode of recruitment after the judgment in Umadevi (supra) could not be treated as an administrative exigency.

a) The policy decisions taken in the matter of regularisation of services of contractual/ad hoc/daily wage employees by issuance of Notifications dated 16.06.2014, 18.06.2014 and 07.07.2014 were the  outcome of valid exercise of executive power. Referring to Article 162 of the Constitution of India, it is submitted that exercise of executive power by the State in view of the acute shortage of employees was a bona fide exercise. It was not necessary that there ought to exist a prior law on the basis of which such executive power could be exercised. Similarly, it was not obligatory on the part of the State Government to make any rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of the India before a post was created or filled. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others Vs. The State of Punjab and others3.

d) The High Court rightly found that though the State Government labelled its exercise as an “one time measure”, it had sought to relax its rules at regular intervals. Moreover, the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 were futuristic in operation inasmuch as ad hoc employees completing service of ten years subsequent to its issuance were sought to be protected.

e) It was rightly found by the High Court that the regularisation policies resulted in qualified candidates seeking regular recruitment being deprived of the same. By seeking to advertise and fill in vacant posts on contractual basis, it was likely that eligible candidates seeking regular appointment would not have applied for  contractual appointment. Regularisation of services now would cause prejudice to such candidates.

18. The object behind issuing these two Notifications for regularising the service of Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, who had been working on ad hoc/contractual/daily wage/work charged basis is evident from the Notifications itself. The same intended to cover such employees, who had been deprived of the benefit of the policy of regularisation dated 07.03.1996. The criteria prescribed was not in any manner watered down or deviated from the criteria required to be satisfied while seeking regular appointment. What is most relevant, in our view, is that such engagement should have been initially made on a sanctioned post and such engagement on the sanctioned post ought to be continuing even on the date of regularisation of service. This would clearly indicate that when such engagement on ad hoc basis was initially made, sanctioned posts were available and this position continued for a number of years so as to enable regularisation of services of the incumbents holding such posts. The criteria prescribed, therefore, is very much in  tune with the criteria that would have otherwise been prescribed had the post been advertised for regular recruitment. We, therefore, find that the exercise of regularising the services of ad hoc employees, who had been left out from getting benefit of the earlier policy that was granted to some ad hoc employees was now being granted to the remaining ad hoc employees. It is not the case of the original petitioners before the High Court, who had challenged the aforesaid Notifications that all ad hoc employees, who were eligible to have their services regularised pursuant to the policy dated 07.03.1996, had already been regularised and that the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were intended to facilitate the regularisation of services of some ineligible ad hoc employees. There is no such material placed on record even to indicate that the beneficiaries of the regularisation policy vide Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were in fact not eligible to such benefit under the policy dated 07.03.1996. The exercise undertaken by the General Administration Department in issuing these Notifications, therefore, cannot be questioned on the ground of  arbitrariness, illegality or as being the outcome of a mala fide exercise of executive power. These relevant aspects do not appear to have been gone into by the High Court while holding otherwise.