Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. We cannot also issue any direction to regularize the petitioners. As already stated above, a regular appointment has to be done in accordance with the relevant rules. We also cannot direct that the petitioner be paid the salary of a regular employee since that can only be done by the concerned authorities, and that too, in accordance with the rules and not de hors the rules.

23. The petitioner/appellant has not been able to point out any statutory rule on the basis of which his claim of regularization can be considered. It is well settled that unless there exists some rule for regularization no direction can be issued by this court to consider the claim for regularization of an employee. Regularisation of an employee is an executive function, and it is not appropriate for this court to encroach into the functions of another organ of the State. The courts must exercise judicial restraint in this connection.

24. In Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir , the Supreme Court observed:

Before adverting to the controversy directly involved in these appeals we may have a fresh look on the inter se functioning of the three organs of democracy under our Constitution. Although the doctrine of separation of powers has not been recognized under the Constitution in its absolute rigidity but the constitution makers have meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the State. Legislature, executive and judiciary have to function within their own spheres demarcated under the Constitution. No organ can usurp the functions assigned to another. The Constitution trusts to the judgment of these organs to function and exercise their discretion by strictly following the procedure prescribed therein. The functioning of democracy depends upon the strength and independence of each of its organs. The Legislature and executive, the two facets of people's will, have all the powers including that of finance. The Judiciary has no power over the sword or the purse, nonetheless it has power to ensure that the aforesaid two main organs of the State function within the constitutional limits. It is the sentinel of democracy. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. The expanding horizon of judicial review has taken in its fold the concept of social and economic justice. While exercise of powers by the legislature and executive is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on our own exercise of power is the self imposed discipline of judicial restraint.

25. The Courts must, therefore, exercise judicial restraint, and not encroach into the executive or legislative domain. Orders for creation of posts, appointment on these posts, regularization, fixing pay scales etc. are all executive or legislative functions, and it is ordinarily improper for Judges to step into this sphere, except in a rare and exceptional case. The relevant case law and philosophy of judicial restraint has been laid down by the Madras High Court in Rama Muthuramalingam v. Dy. S.P, , and we agree with the views expressed therein.