Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of India by the State of Himachal Pradesh against an order of the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No.722/93 dated 10.9.1993, which had directed re-engagement of the respondents as Assistant Development Officers on daily wages. The respondents were daily wage employees whose project had come to an end, leading to termination for want of work. The State challenged the High Court's direction, contending that it violated recruitment rules and amounted to judicial legislation by creating a back-door entry into service. The respondents were engaged as Assistant Development Officers on daily wages. The project in which they were engaged came to an end, and they were terminated. The High Court, on a writ petition, directed their re-engagement on daily wages, apparently accepting their claim for continuation. The State appealed, arguing that daily wage appointment is not an appointment to a post under the rules and that vacancies must be filled by direct recruitment according to rules. The respondents relied on an alleged admission in the counter affidavit filed by the State that vacancies existed, claiming they were entitled to continue in service. The core legal issues were whether the High Court could direct re-engagement of daily wagers after project completion, whether daily wage appointment constitutes an appointment to a post under recruitment rules, and whether vacancies must be filled by direct recruitment. The State argued that recruitment rules are binding, daily wage employment is not a post, and court directions to appoint would be a back-door entry detrimental to efficiency and breeding nepotism and corruption. The respondents argued that admitted vacancies justified their continuation. The Supreme Court held that settled law requires the State to follow its recruitment rules; appointment on daily wage basis is not an appointment to a post according to rules. When a project ends, termination for want of work is justified; courts cannot direct re-engagement or appointment against existing vacancies, as that would be a mode of recruitment de hors the rules. Daily wage employment cannot be a conduit pipe for regular appointments, which would be a back-door entry detrimental to efficiency and would breed seeds of nepotism and corruption. Even for Class IV employees, recruitment according to rules is a precondition. Only work-charged employees performing duties of transitory and urgent nature are appointed not to a post but to perform such work so long as the work exists. One temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee. Accordingly, the High Court's view was held to be incorrect and was set aside. However, the Court directed that if the respondents apply for any regular appointment and become age-barred, the State should consider necessary relaxation of their age to the extent of their period of service on daily wages and then consider their cases according to rules, if they are otherwise eligible. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - State Bound to Follow Recruitment Rules for Posts - Not mentioned - The State, having made rules for recruitment to various services or posts, is bound to follow such rules and select candidates accordingly; appointment on daily wage basis is not an appointment to a post according to the rules. Held that daily wage appointment cannot be a conduit pipe for regular appointments, which would be a back-door entry detrimental to efficiency and breeding nepotism and corruption (Paras 1-2). B) Service Law - Termination of Daily Wager - Project Completion and Non-Availability of Work - Not mentioned - Where the project in which daily wagers were engaged had come to an end, termination for want of work is justified; court cannot direct re-engagement in any other work or appointment against existing vacancies as that would be a mode of recruitment de hors the rules. Held that High Court's direction to re-engage daily wagers was incorrect and set aside (Paras 1-2). C) Service Law - Vacancies and Direct Recruitment - Filling Up Vacancies According to Rules - Not mentioned - Vacancies must be filled up in accordance with recruitment rules and all eligible candidates are entitled to apply and be considered on merit; admission of vacancies in counter affidavit does not entitle daily wagers to continue in service. Held that claiming continuation based on vacancies is untenable (Paras 1-2). D) Service Law - Work-Charged Employees - Transitory Nature of Work - Not mentioned - Even for Class IV employees recruitment according to rules is a precondition; only work-charged employees performing duties of transitory and urgent nature are appointed not to a post but to perform such work so long as it exists; one temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee. Held that these principles govern temporary appointments (Paras 1-2). E) Service Law - Age Relaxation - Regularisation of Daily Wagers - Not mentioned - Although the High Court's direction was set aside, if the respondents apply for regular appointment and become age-barred, the State is directed to consider relaxation of their age to the extent of their period of service on daily wages and then consider their cases according to rules if otherwise eligible. Held that appeal allowed with this direction, no costs (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in directing re-engagement of daily wage Assistant Development Officers despite termination due to end of project, and whether such direction violates recruitment rules and amounts to back-door entry.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; no costs. State directed to consider age relaxation for respondents if they apply for regular appointment and become overaged, to extent of daily wage service period, and consider their cases according to rules if otherwise eligible.
Law Points
- State bound to follow recruitment rules
- appointment on daily wage basis not appointment to post according to rules
- court cannot direct re-engagement or appointment against vacancies
- vacancies must be filled according to rules
- daily wages cannot be conduit pipe for regular appointments
- back-door entry detrimental to efficiency and breeds nepotism and corruption
- even Class IV recruitment requires rules
- work-charged employees perform transitory duties
- one temporary employee cannot replace another temporary employee
- age relaxation may be considered for daily wagers applying for regular posts
