Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had directed regularisation and consequential benefits to the respondent, Mohd. Suleman Siddiqui. The respondent was initially appointed as a daily wage registration clerk in the office of the District Registrar, Jhansi, based on the minutes of the Departmental Selection Committee dated 24 February 1991. The Committee selected six candidates against regular vacancies and recommended two more for probable vacancies, but the respondent was among eleven daily wagers engaged separately. His services were terminated on 27 May 1991, but he was reinstated pursuant to an interim order of the High Court. The High Court, in a judgment dated 9 September 1999, set aside the termination and directed consequential benefits, holding that Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules 1985 was substantially complied with. However, the respondent was involved in a criminal case under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, convicted, and later acquitted on compromise. His representation for regularisation was rejected by the Inspector General (Registration) on 16 August 2011 on the ground that he was unfit for government service. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed his writ petition, setting aside the rejection and granting consequential benefits, and the Division Bench dismissed the State's special appeal on delay. The Supreme Court held that the respondent's initial appointment was on a daily wage basis, not against a regular vacancy, and the High Court's finding that his selection was regular was erroneous. The Court noted that the Division Bench had subsequently rejected the plea for regularisation of daily wagers in a batch of appeals. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and dismissed the respondent's writ petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Daily Wage Appointment - Regularisation - The respondent was appointed as a daily wage registration clerk, not against a regular vacancy, as per the Selection Committee minutes. The High Court's finding that his selection was regular was erroneous. (Paras 2-4, 16) B) Service Law - Rule 22 of Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules 1985 - Compliance - The initial appointment was on daily wage basis, and the question of compliance with Rule 22 for regular selection did not arise. (Paras 6-7, 16) C) Criminal Law - Effect of Acquittal on Service - The respondent's conviction under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC was set aside on compromise, but the Inspector General found him unfit for government service. The High Court's interference was not justified. (Paras 9, 11) D) Service Law - Regularisation - The Division Bench's judgment dated 5 October 2017 rejected the plea for regularisation of daily wagers, which applies to the respondent. (Para 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was entitled to regularisation and consequential benefits based on his initial appointment as a daily wage employee, and whether the High Court erred in setting aside the rejection of his representation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court dated 18 April 2014 and 23 September 2014, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent.
Law Points
- Daily wage appointment
- Regularisation
- Selection Committee
- Rule 22 of Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules 1985
- Consequential benefits
- Criminal conviction set aside
