Case Note & Summary
The case involved three appeals challenging the dismissal of writ petitions by the Allahabad High Court regarding the appointment of the appellants as paid apprentices by the District Judge. The appellants were appointed on an ad hoc basis, and their appointments ended after a certain period. The appointments were governed by the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, which were later replaced by the Recruitment of Ministerial Staff to the Subordinate Offices Rules of 1950. The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc appointments Rules, 1979, allowed for the regularisation of certain ad hoc employees, but the High Court had previously indicated that ad hoc appointments should not be made without prior approval. The appellants contended that they were entitled to regularisation under these rules, especially since similar employees in other districts had been regularised. However, the High Court dismissed their petitions, stating that the appointments were illegal and irregular. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the appellants could not claim regularisation due to the irregular nature of their appointments and that no statutory basis existed for their claims. The court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them without costs.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Regularisation of Services - Claim for Regularisation - Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 - The court held that illegal and irregular appointees are not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the Regularisation Rules do not intend to regularise such appointments. (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the appellants as paid apprentices was valid and if they could claim regularisation of their services.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment that the appellants were not entitled to regularisation due to the illegal nature of their appointments and the absence of any statutory basis for their claims.
Law Points
- Regularisation of services
- Ad hoc appointments
- Statutory rules
- Discretionary jurisdiction
- Recruitment rules
