Open iDraf
E. Ramakrishnan v. State Of Kerala

E. Ramakrishnan
State Of Kerala

(Supreme Court Of India)

Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16725 Of 1996 | 04-09-1996

Faizan Uddin, J.

1. The petitioners were appointed as Field Workers in the Filaria Department of The States Government between 1981 and 1985. In the first instance, they had filed W.P. No. 250/92 and the High Court directed the Government to consider their representation and dispose it of by judgment dated January 18, 1993. When they came to this Court, this Court directed the Government to consider their cases in the light of the law laid down by this Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1982) 4 SCC 118. Subsequently, since the Government had not taken any steps, the petitioners filed another writ petition. In the meanwhile the Public Service Commission (PSC) had selected the candidates who were not being appointed. Therefore, the selectees approached the High Court and filed the writ petition. The petitioners also filed the writ petition in the High Court seeking for regularisation. The High Court in the impugned order dated June 24, 1996 in O.P. No. 17422/93 dismissed the batch of writ petitions filed by the selectees and directed the Government to appoint the candidates selected through the PSC. It also directed the Government to send the requisition to the PSC to fill up the posts of 30 vacancies from the list of the selected candidates prepared by the PSC. Thus this special leave petition.

2. It is sought to be contended by Mr. M.M. Paikeday, learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in the light of the law laid down by the Court in Piara Singhs case and in view of the fact that the petitioners have been continuing for more than 14 years, they are required to be regularised. We find no force in the contention. Admittedly, the posts are to be filled up through selection by PSC recruitment norms. Necessarily therefore, the requisition was sent for selection through the PSC and candidates came to be selected. Under those circumstances, the candidates, who were found eligible and selected and recommended for appointment by the PSC, were required to be appointed. The Court rightly had exercised the power in declining to regularise the services of the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel sought to rely upon an order of the Government where the Government had decided to regularise the service of the ad hoc employees. Obviously, since the decision runs into the teeth of the statutory requirement under Article 320 of the Constitution, the Government cannot take any decision contrary to the Constitution to regularise the services of the candidates de hors the recruitments rules and the statutory process for selection through the PSC. The High Court, therefore, has rightly given direction to the Government to notify 30 vacancies and odd or whatever may be the vacancies existing to fill up from amongst the candidates selected by the PSC.

4. It is then contended that the petitioners have turned over aged and, therefore, necessary direction may be given to regularise their service by filling up the unfilled posts. Even that relief also cannot be granted. If the petitioners have turned over aged on the date of recruitment, it would be for the appropriate Government to relax the age recruitment and the petitioners have to stand in the queue and get selection through the PSC. Thus what they get is only the right to appointment to the post.

5. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

6. SLP dismissed.

Advocates List

For the Petitioners - Mr. Mathai, M. Paikeday, Sr. Advocate, Mr. C.N. Sree Kumar and Mr. Shaju Francis, Advocates.

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List



Eq Citation

1996 (3) SLJ 111 (SC)

1997 (1) SCT 108 (SC)

(1996) 10 SCC 565

(1997) SCC (LS) 331

1996 7 AD (SC) 330

[1996] (SUPPL.) 5 SCR 533

JT 1996 (9) SC 286

1996 (7) SCALE 76

(1997) 1 LLJ 1215

1996 (3) SLJ 311

1997 (1) SLR 581