Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"29. The doubts raised in UP State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey (2007) 11 SCC 92, on the applicability of Constitution Bench in Umadevi's case (Supra) in a case where regularisation is sought for in pursuance of Article 14 of the Constitution or the conflict with the judgment of the seven judges bench in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, has also been set at rest in the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1.

(xiii)There should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularisation or making permanent those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.

         (33)       xxxx                xxx                 xxxx
         (34)       xxx                 xxx                 xxxx

(35) In Umadevi's case (Supra) there is an exception. General principles against regularisation like the employees who have worked for 10 years or more against a sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any Court or Tribunal. Thus the employee should have been continued in service voluntarily and without break of more then 10 years and appointment of such employee should not be illegal even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments would be considered to be illegal. However, the employee while possessing the prescribed qualification and was working against sanctioned post but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, 5 of 12 CWP-29323-2017 (O&M) -6- such appointments are considered to be irregular. Umadevi's case (Supra) casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality to take necessary steps to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than 10 years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of Courts or Tribunals as a one-time measure. The said direction was to be set in motion within 6 months from the date of its decision i.e. w.e.f. 10.4.2006. The true effect of the direction is that all employees who have worked for more than 10 years as on 10.4.2006, the date of decision in Umadevi's case (Supra) are entitled to be considered for regularisation, if otherwise they are eligible. Unfortunately, petitioner's case does not fall within the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi's case (Supra). The conditions stipulated for regularisation would be prior to the date of disposal of Umadevi's case (Supra) i.e. 10.4.2006. Consequently, it has no prospective application.