Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and K. Rajyalakshmi regarding the regularisation of her services. The respondent was appointed on 1.4.1975 for a project funded by the Central Government on a yearly basis. After years of service, she sought regularisation, which was initially rejected, leading her to file a writ petition that was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal ordered her regularisation from the date of her initial appointment, which was contested by ICMR in the High Court. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellants argued that the project was adhoc and thus regularisation was not warranted. The respondent contended that the Tribunal's decision was justified as there was an intention to make the project permanent. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal and High Court erred by not considering that the Union of India was not a party to the proceedings, and that the project could not be made permanent unilaterally by ICMR. The Court emphasized that the creation of posts is an executive function and ruled that the regularisation order could not stand. However, it directed that any payments made to the respondent would not be recovered, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. The appeal was allowed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Regularisation of Services - Conditions for Regularisation - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - The Tribunal directed regularisation of the respondent's services based on the assumption that the project should be made permanent, which was not within the appellant's authority. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and High Court erred in entertaining the regularisation question without the Union of India being a party, thus setting aside the direction for regularisation. (Paras 9-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the services of the respondent could be regularised despite her appointment being on an adhoc basis.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the regularisation order issued by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court, ruling that the project could not be made permanent unilaterally by ICMR. However, it directed that any payments made to the respondent would not be recovered.
Law Points
- Regularisation of services
- Adhoc employment
- Doctrine of fairness
- Executive function in service jurisprudence
