Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: regularisation in S.Marimuthu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 March, 2019Matching Fragments
“8. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners made a submission that it is the duty mandatory on the part of the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioners for regularisation in the existing vacancies since the writ petitioners have http://www.judis.nic.in put in more than 10 years of their services as daily wage employees and their names are registered under the Nominal Muster Roll maintained by the respondents. It is not the case of appointment of the writ petitioners but the case of their regularisation is the contention of the writ petitioners. When the employees have completed 10 years of their services, without the intervention of any Court order then their services to be regularised as per paragraph 53 of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], laid down the legal principles in the matter of regularisation, permanent absorption. The relevant Paragraph 53 of the judgment, cited supra, is extracted hereunder:-
11. Mooting out the above two principles, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners urged this Court by stating that in respect of the irregular appointments, there is no bar for granting regularisation.
But the learned counsel is of the opinion that the illegal appointments alone, cannot be regularised. As far as the irregular appointments are concerned, the length of service is to be taken into account for the purpose of granting regularisation. Accordingly, the writ petitioners are entitled for regularisation in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, cited supra.
22. The learned Additional Government Pleader also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court case in State of Rajasthan and others vs. V.Dayal Lal and Others [AIR 2011 SC 1193] held as under:-
“(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.
43.As to what would constitute an irregular appointment is no longer res integra. The decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v.
M.L. Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] , has examined that question and explained the principle regarding regularisation as enunciated in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . The decision in that case summed up the following three essentials for regularisation: (1) the employees have worked for ten years or more, (2) that they have so worked in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal, and (3) they should have possessed the minimum qualification stipulated for the appointment. Subject to these three requirements being satisfied, even if the appointment process did not involve open competitive selection, the appointment would be treated irregular and not illegal and thereby qualify for regularisation. Para 7 in this regard is apposite and may be extracted at this stage: (M.L. Kesari case [(2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] , SCC p. 250) “7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ‘regularisation’ enunciated in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , if the following conditions are fulfilled: