Case Note & Summary
The case concerned a service dispute over the regularisation of temporary Assistant Engineers in the Regional Development Authority of Bihar. The appellants were initially appointed as Assistant Engineers on daily wages at Rs.40 per day on November 16, 1987, and were later placed in the pay scale of Rs.880-1510 per month after selection through examinations. The second respondent, Regional Development Authority, attempted to regularise their services and sent a proposal to the State Government. The Government accepted the proposal but referred it to the Public Service Commission, which did not concur with regularisation. Consequently, the appellants filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking a mandamus to direct the authority to regularise their services. The Division Bench of the High Court in LPA No. 788 of 1995, by order dated September 11, 1996, refused to issue such directions. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The appellants argued that Section 6(3) of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 empowered the Authority to appoint the Secretary and other officers and employees. They contended that the proviso to Section 6(3) allowed the appointing authority to appoint any person for a period not exceeding six months on any post carrying a minimum salary of Rs.500 and above after approval of the State Government, and that such appointment would be on a regular basis. They further contended that the Authority had not framed statutory rules for the mode of recruitment, and the advertisement did not indicate that the appointments were temporary. The respondent State relied on the requirement of Public Service Commission concurrence, which was not obtained. The Supreme Court found no force in the appellants' contention. It held that Section 6(3) only empowers the Authority to appoint the Secretary, other officers and employees. The proviso is a breathing elbow power given to the Authority to make temporary appointments so that the work of the Development Authority continues pending recruitment. When advertisement was made for recruitment, it was in furtherance of the power under the proviso for a limited period, and the appointments were obviously only temporary. The Court noted that the posts were within the purview of the Public Service Commission; the Government sought concurrence and the Commission correctly did not concur. Therefore, any regularisation in violation of recruitment to be made by the Public Service Commission would be in contravention of law. No mandamus or direction could be issued to violate law. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Temporary Appointments - Proviso to Section 6(3) of Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 - Temporary appointments made under the proviso are only stop-gap arrangements pending recruitment through the Public Service Commission; no right to regularisation arises merely because examination was conducted and advertisement did not state temporary nature; regularisation without Public Service Commission concurrence would contravene statutory recruitment rules - Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981, Section 6(3) - The appellants were appointed as Assistant Engineers on daily wages and later placed in a pay scale; their regularisation proposal was rejected by the Public Service Commission; the High Court refused to issue mandamus; the Supreme Court held that the proviso is a 'breathing elbow power' for temporary appointments and no mandamus can issue to violate law; appeal dismissed (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether temporary appointees under the proviso to Section 6(3) of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 are entitled to regularisation in the absence of Public Service Commission concurrence.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; no costs. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's refusal to issue mandamus for regularisation. Temporary appointments made under the proviso to Section 6(3) did not confer a right to regularisation, and regularisation without Public Service Commission concurrence would contravene law.
Law Points
- The proviso to Section 6(3) of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act
- 1981 confers only a limited power to make temporary appointments pending recruitment
- regularisation of such appointments without Public Service Commission concurrence is impermissible
- no mandamus can issue to violate statutory recruitment rules
