Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved temporary Field Workers in the Filaria Department of the Kerala State Government, appointed between 1981 and 1985, and candidates selected by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) who had not been appointed. The petitioners sought regularization of their services; the selected candidates sought appointment. The petitioners initially filed W.P. No.250/92, leading to a High Court order dated January 18, 1993 directing the Government to consider their representation. They then approached the Supreme Court, which directed the Government to consider their cases in light of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh. As the Government took no steps, they filed another writ petition. Meanwhile, the PSC had selected candidates, who also approached the High Court seeking appointment. The High Court by impugned order dated June 24, 1996 in O.P. No.17422/93 dismissed the petitioners' batch of writ petitions, allowed the selectees' writ petition, and directed the Government to appoint PSC-selected candidates and to fill 30 vacancies from the PSC list. Legal issues included whether long-serving temporary employees have a legal right to regularization contrary to statutory recruitment through PSC; whether a Government order can override Article 320; and whether over-age employees can be regularized without PSC selection. Petitioners contended that under Piara Singh and due to 14 years' continuous service they must be regularized; they relied on a Government order to regularize; and contended that since they had become over-aged, directions should be issued to regularize or fill unfilled posts. The Court noted that the posts were admittedly to be filled through selection by PSC recruitment norms; requisition was sent and candidates selected. Therefore, selected candidates were required to be appointed. The High Court correctly declined to regularize services of petitioners. The Government order relied upon was ineffective because it conflicted with the statutory requirement under Article 320 of the Constitution; the Government cannot take a decision contrary to the Constitution to regularize services de hors recruitment rules and PSC process. On the over-age issue, the Court held that it cannot grant regularization or fill unfilled posts; if petitioners are over-aged, the appropriate Government may relax age, but they must stand in queue and get selection through PSC. The special leave petition was dismissed, affirming the High Court's directions to notify vacancies and fill them from PSC-selected candidates. The petitioners were left to seek age relaxation and compete through PSC.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularization of Temporary Employees - Public Employment Must Be Through PSC Selection - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 320 - Petitioners appointed as Field Workers between 1981 and 1985 claimed regularization after more than 14 years based on State of Haryana v. Piara Singh. The Court found no force in the contention because posts were required to be filled through PSC recruitment norms and PSC-selected candidates were required to be appointed. Held that the High Court rightly declined to regularize services of petitioners. B) Constitutional Law - Government Order Contrary to Article 320 - Government Cannot Regularize De Hors Recruitment Rules - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 320 - The petitioners relied on a Government order deciding to regularize services, but the Court held that such decision runs into the teeth of statutory requirement under Article 320 and therefore Government cannot take any decision contrary to the Constitution to regularize services de hors recruitment rules and statutory process for selection through PSC. Held that High Court rightly directed appointment of PSC-selected candidates. C) Service Law - Age Relaxation for Over-Aged Candidates - Appropriate Government May Relax Age But Candidates Must Compete Through PSC - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 320 - Petitioners claimed over-aged and sought regularization or filling unfilled posts; Court held even that relief cannot be granted because if petitioners have turned over-aged on date of recruitment, it is for appropriate Government to relax age requirement and petitioners must stand in queue and get selection through PSC. Held that they get only right to appointment through PSC.
Issue of Consideration
Whether temporary Field Workers with over 14 years of service are entitled to regularization despite statutory requirement of selection through Public Service Commission; whether Government order to regularize services overrides Article 320 of the Constitution; whether relief can be granted on ground of over-age.
Final Decision
The special leave petition was dismissed. The High Court order was upheld, directing the Government to notify 30 vacancies and odd or whatever vacancies exist and fill them from among candidates selected by the Public Service Commission. Petitioners were not entitled to regularization; any age relaxation is for the appropriate Government and petitioners must stand in queue and get selection through PSC.
Law Points
- Public employment must be through statutory recruitment process
- regularization de hors recruitment rules impermissible
- Article 320 of Constitution mandates PSC consultation for public appointments
- government order contrary to constitutional requirement invalid
- PSC-selected candidates have right to appointment
- age relaxation discretionary for government
