Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Regularisation of Services in Temporary Employment Scheme Due to Project Closure. Employees Appointed Temporarily Under a Scheme Cannot Claim Regularisation After Its Termination, as No Vested Rights Exist.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from the U.P. Land Development Corporation's decision to prepare a panel for the recruitment of Assistant Project Managers under the Million Wells Scheme. The Corporation sought names of B.Sc. (Agr) graduates for training, and subsequently, 32 candidates were selected and appointed temporarily. After the scheme's closure on 31/3/1994, six candidates filed a writ petition for regularisation of their services, which was initially granted by a Single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Corporation appealed against this decision, arguing that the appointments were temporary and contingent on the scheme's existence. The court examined the internal notes and government orders, concluding that the respondents were not appointed against sanctioned posts and had no right to regularisation after the project's termination. The court referenced precedents indicating that temporary employees do not acquire vested rights upon project closure. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowing the appeal without costs, while noting that the respondents could seek future employment opportunities if available.

Headnote

A) Employment Law - Regularisation of Services - Entitlement Post Project Closure - Not applicable under the circumstances of temporary employment - The Supreme Court held that employees appointed under a temporary scheme do not have a vested right to regularisation upon the project's closure, as their appointments were not against sanctioned posts. The court set aside the High Court's order directing regularisation, emphasizing that temporary employment ceases with the project's end (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondents were entitled to regularisation of their services after the closure of the Million Wells Scheme.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order for regularisation, allowing the appeal and stating that the respondents had no vested rights to regularisation after the project's closure.

Law Points

  • Temporary employment
  • regularisation of services
  • project closure
  • vested rights
  • recruitment procedures
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2003 LawText (SC) (04) 5

Appeal (civil) 6847 of 1997

2003-04-01

Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat

2003(3) SCR 266

Sunil Gupta, K.B. Sinha

M.D. U.P. Land Development Corporation

Amar Singh and Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the High Court's order regarding regularisation of services.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to overturn the High Court's order for regularisation.

Filing Reason

The respondents claimed entitlement to regularisation after the closure of the Million Wells Scheme.

Previous Decisions

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition for regularisation, which was upheld by the Division Bench.

Issues

Entitlement to regularisation of services after project closure Validity of temporary appointments under the Million Wells Scheme

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the respondents' appointments were temporary and ceased with the project's closure. The respondents contended that their qualifications and satisfactory service warranted regularisation.

Ratio Decidendi

Employees appointed temporarily under a project do not acquire vested rights to regularisation upon the project's termination, as their appointments were not against sanctioned posts.

Judgment Excerpts

The directions issued by the High Court are absolutely illegal warranting our interference. No vested right is created in temporary employment.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, which upheld the Single Judge's decision to regularise the respondents' services.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Evidence. Circumstantial Evidence Found Lacking to Establish Guilt Under Section 302 IPC.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Eviction Decree for Non-User and Subletting of Tenanted Shop. Tenant's Use of Premises as Godown for Grocery Items Held to Be Change of User and Subletting to Brother Constitutes Unauthorized Transfer.