Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: regularization PERMANENCY in K.Vellai Pandi vs The Secretary To The Government on 5 March, 2018Matching Fragments
36. Before considering the subject of regularization and permanent absorption, this Court has to consider the interpretation of the judgments on ?binding nature? or ?binding precedent? . In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited number of judgments, which were passed subsequent to the Constitution Bench judgment, stating that Paragraph (53) of the ?Umadevi Case? has been interpreted in different ways and under different circumstances and the present case is also to be considered and a direction to be issued for regularization. In view of the fact that large number of judgments are cited before this Court in the matter of regularization and permanent absorption, now, this Court has to first decide what all are the judgments which all are having a ?binding precedent? and on this reason, this Court has to consider very interpretation of the concept regarding ?binding precedent?. In respect of judgments in relation to the interpretation of ?binding precedent?, this Court is inclined to consider the very recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in JT 2017 (10) SC 450. It is pertinent to note that it is a judgment by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India headed by His Lordship, Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra.CJI,. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India delivered this judgment and it is relevant to quote paragraphs (15 to 26):
54. The very arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the State of Karnataka is that a chaos was created on account of various contradicting orders passed by the High Courts in the matter of regularization or permanent absorption in order to settle the legal principles. The learned counsel urged the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to take note of the fact that there is a chaos prevailing in respect of the regularization and permanent absorption of the temporary/daily wages employees and brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the High Courts would be precluded from issuing any such directions or passing such orders in contrary to the legal principles in the matters of regularization or permanent absorption or appointment. The observation made in this regard is that bypassing of the Constitutional scheme cannot be perpetuated by the passing of orders without dealing with and deciding the validity of such orders on the touchstone of Constitutionality.
2006 SCC (L&S) 1318] , State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma [(2007) 1 SCC 575 :
(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 405] and Post Master General v. Tutu Das (Dutta) [(2007) 5 SCC 317 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 179] .]?
106. When the scope of the paragraph (53) of the judgment, is well enumerated by the Hon'ble Two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as cited above, this Court is not inclined to consider the other judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, on a perusal of all these judgments cited supra, this Court is of the opinion that ultimately the legal principle settled in by the Constitution Bench in the ?Umadevi Case? is binding over the subject and the same is to be followed scrupulously by all the Courts across the country and the same becomes the law of the land in the matter of regularization, permanent absorption and appointment.
107. Now, considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, it remains that the writ petitioners were appointed as daily rated employees for a particular period and, this Court has to draw an inference that all the Government orders passed subsequent to the Constitution Bench Judgment, if runs contrary to the legal principles settled by the Constitution Bench, would become invalid and the same cannot be implemented or followed. In other words, it is to be noted that the Government has no authority to issue any orders granting regularization, permanent absorption or appointment in violation of the Constitutional schemes and in violation of the recruitment rules in force. The power of the Government in this regard is certainly abrogated by the principles settled by the Constitution Bench in the ?Umadevi Case?. Such being the factum of the case, the State Government is to be precluded as well as its authority are to be regularized in respect of appointing employees in contravention with the recruitment rules in force and effecting appointments through back doors.