Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, rejecting the appellant's claim for regularisation as Lecturer in Dentistry at Government B.J. Medical College, Pune. The appellant, a Bachelor in Dental Surgery, was selected by the Division Selection Board and appointed on 16th September 1978 on a purely temporary basis against a permanent post. The appointment letter stated that the appointment was subject to termination without notice and the appellant was prohibited from private practice. She worked continuously for nine years without break. In March 1988, the post was advertised through the Public Service Commission, prompting the appellant to file a writ petition claiming regularisation under the Government Resolution dated 19.9.1975. The petition was transferred to the Tribunal in 1991. Respondent no. 3, Dr. Satish B. Barale, was selected by the Public Service Commission but could not join due to an interim order in favour of the appellant; he also filed a petition seeking appointment. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim, holding that the 1975 Resolution required the original appointment to be in conformity with recruitment rules, and since the Class-II post of Lecturer in Dentistry was within the purview of the Public Service Commission, that condition was not satisfied. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the appellant had been selected by the Public Service Commission in 1980 and 1985 for other posts but did not join. In 1984, a regular selection was made and Dr. S.C. Bhoir was selected but did not join, allowing the appellant to continue. By 1988, the eligibility criteria had changed under the Maharashtra Medical and Research Services Class-II in Directorate of Medical and Research (Recruitment) Rules, 1986. The Supreme Court framed the question whether a temporary appointee against a permanent post who worked continuously for nine years was entitled to regularisation under the 1975 Resolution or equitable principles. The appellant argued that her continuous service and satisfaction of physical fitness and good record conditions entitled her to regularisation; the State contended that the post was within PSC purview and recruitment rules had to be followed strictly. The Court held that recruitment rules framed under Article 309 must be strictly followed and that bypassing the Public Service Commission would open a back-door for illegal recruitment. Reliance was placed on Dr. M.A. Haque v. Union of India. The Court found that the post of Lecturer in Dentistry was within PSC purview even in 1978, as it was not included in the 1965 notification excluding certain posts from PSC purview. Continuous service, however long, could not override statutory selection through the Commission. The Court also observed that the appellant's continuance was partly due to the selected candidate not joining and interim orders, not government inaction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Conditions under Government Resolution dated 19.9.1975 - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 309; Temporary Government Servants Extension of Permanency Resolution, 1975 - Appellant appointed temporarily against permanent post as Lecturer in Dentistry in 1978 claimed regularisation under 1975 Resolution after nine years continuous service. Tribunal found first condition of resolution not satisfied because original appointment was not in conformity with recruitment rules as the post was within purview of Maharashtra Public Service Commission. Held that regularisation cannot be granted where appointment bypassed the prescribed method of recruitment through Public Service Commission. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Service Law - Continuous Service and Equitable Regularisation - No deemed regularisation from long continuous service - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 309; Maharashtra Medical and Research Services Class-II in Directorate of Medical and Research (Recruitment) Rules, 1986 - Court held that eligibility and continuous working for however long period should not be permitted to overreach the law; requirement of selection through Commission cannot be substituted by humane considerations. Law must take its course. Held that nine years of continuous service did not confer permanent status or right to regularisation. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Constitutional Law - Public Service Commission's Role - Recruitment to Class-II posts must follow PSC selection to prevent back-door entry - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 309; Recruitment Rules for Lecturer in Dentistry, 1977 - Court relied on Dr. M.A. Haque v. Union of India cautioning against bypassing Public Service Commissions and opening back-door for illegal recruitment; post of Lecturer in Dentistry Class-II was within PSC purview even in 1978. Held that appeal fails because appellant's regularisation would violate constitutional recruitment requirements. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Service Law - Temporary Appointment to Permanent Post - Difference from ad-hoc appointment - No specific statutory provision cited - Court observed that a person appointed temporarily to a permanent post cannot be equated with ad-hoc appointee and has privileges of regular employee except permanency only in manner provided in rules; however, continuous temporary service by itself does not confer permanent status. Held that appellant's continuance was partly due to selected candidate not joining and interim orders, not due to Government inaction. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a temporary appointee against a permanent post of Lecturer in Dentistry, who worked continuously for nine years, was entitled to regularisation under the Temporary Government Servants Extension of Permanency Resolution, 1975 or under equitable principles despite the post being within the purview of the Public Service Commission.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant's claim for regularisation under the 1975 Government Resolution or on equitable grounds was rejected. The Court held that the post of Lecturer in Dentistry was within the purview of the Public Service Commission, recruitment rules under Article 309 had to be strictly followed, and continuous temporary service did not confer permanency. Interim orders in favour of the appellant had caused injury to the selected candidate.
Law Points
- Recruitment rules made under Article 309 must be strictly followed
- Regularisation under Government Resolution requires original appointment in conformity with recruitment rules
- Continuous service however long cannot override statutory selection through Public Service Commission
- Temporary appointee to permanent post does not acquire permanency without compliance with rules
- Back-door recruitment through irregular appointments impermissible
