Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from special leave petitions filed by ad hoc lecturers against an order of the Administrative Tribunal dated February 20, 1996 in OA No.290/95 and batch. The petitioners had been appointed as lecturers on ad hoc basis, and some of them had obtained M.Phil and Ph.D. degrees. When regular recruitment was conducted through the Public Service Commission, the petitioners also appeared before the Commission but were not selected. Subsequently, they filed petitions seeking regularisation of their services. The Tribunal rejected their claim, holding that since posts are required to be filled by recruitment from the open market through the Commission, the Tribunal had no power to issue direction to regularise the services. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions. The petitioners' counsel contended that the petitioners were postgraduates, M.Phil and Ph.D, highly qualified and had acquired experience from 1987 as lecturers. It was argued that when they were appointed, number of vacancies were available and since they had been working since 1987, they required to be regularised by suitable directions. The Supreme Court found no force in the contention. The Court noted the admitted position that the Commission having been entrusted with the constitutional duty to select suitable candidates by inviting applications from the open market, every candidate has a fundamental right to seek consideration and for selection through open competition. The petitioners also had that right but at one time they staked their claims and were not selected. Therefore, the process of recruitment through the Commission, as envisaged under the Constitution, cannot be bypassed by issuing direction for regularisation of the services of ad hoc persons who had come to the service through back-door entry. The Court observed that this Court in catena of decisions has deprecated the practice of regularisation except in extraordinary cases by directing the Government to frame a scheme and regularise Class III and IV services in accordance with the scheme. Even in subsequent decisions, that leverage was not being insisted upon. The Court relied on J & K Public Service Commission & Ors. vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors. [(1994) SCC (L & S) 723] which held that the Court cannot adopt hybrid process of direction to regularise the services bypassing process of selection envisaged under the Constitution. The Court also deprecated the Government for exercising power under Article 320 of the Constitution by taking out posts from the purview of the Commission and regularising services de hors the Commission. Under those circumstances, the Court held that the Tribunal had rightly rejected the claim to grant the relief sought for. Accordingly, the special leave petitions were dismissed, subject to the benefit of relaxation of age bar till the date of next recruitment so as to consider the cases of the petitioners along with open candidates.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Public Employment - Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointees - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 320 - Ad hoc lecturers who appeared before Public Service Commission but were not selected sought regularisation after working since 1987. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional duty of the Commission to select candidates from open market cannot be bypassed by directing regularisation; such ad hoc appointments are back-door entries and regularisation is deprecated except in extraordinary cases for Class III and IV services. The Court relied on J & K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan that no hybrid process of regularisation bypassing constitutional selection is permissible. Held, the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim; special leave petitions dismissed but age relaxation granted for next recruitment. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether ad hoc lecturers who failed in regular recruitment through Public Service Commission are entitled to regularisation of services by judicial direction?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions, holding that regularisation of ad hoc appointees cannot bypass the constitutional recruitment process through the Public Service Commission. However, the Court granted the petitioners relaxation of age bar till the date of next recruitment so as to consider their cases along with open candidates.
Law Points
- Recruitment through Public Service Commission cannot be bypassed by regularisation of ad hoc appointees
- Public Service Commission has constitutional duty to select candidates through open market
- every candidate has fundamental right to seek consideration and selection through open competition
- back-door entry regularisation deprecated
- Article 320 Commission's role cannot be circumvented
- no hybrid process of regularisation bypassing constitutional selection
