Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kamlesh, was appointed as an Extra Departmental Employee (EDE) at Pooth Kalan Post Office on a provisional basis by an order dated 13.07.1992. The appointment order explicitly stated that the provisional appointment would be terminated when a regular appointment was made, and that she would have no claim to any post. The order also reserved the right to terminate at any time without notice or reason. After a Central Administrative Tribunal order dated 05.02.2003, the appellant sought regularization, which was rejected on 28.04.2003. She filed O.A. 1736/2003 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on 07.05.2004. On 20.05.2004, her service was discontinued. She challenged the Tribunal's order via W.P. 9282/2004, which was dismissed on 08.07.2004, and a review was dismissed on 03.12.2004. A Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28.03.2008 with liberty to approach the High Court. She filed a miscellaneous application, which was dismissed on 29.08.2008. The Supreme Court, on 14.03.2011, directed reinstatement pending final disposal. The core legal issue was whether a provisionally appointed employee can claim regularization based on prolonged service. The appellant argued that no regular incumbents had replaced her, but the court noted that the appointment was provisional with clear terms. The High Court and Tribunal had consistently held that she had no right to regularization. The Supreme Court upheld the impugned order, finding no error, but permitted her to continue until regular appointment is made, without back wages. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Provisional Appointment - Regularization - Extra Departmental Employee - The appellant was appointed provisionally as EDE with clear terms that appointment would terminate upon regular appointment and she had no claim to any post. The court held that provisional appointment does not confer any right to regularization, even if the employee continues for a long period. The High Court and Tribunal correctly dismissed her claim. (Paras 2, 7) B) Service Law - Termination - Provisional Appointment - The appointment order expressly reserved the right to terminate without notice or reason. The court upheld the discontinuation of service as per the terms. (Paras 2, 3) C) Service Law - Review Petition - Maintainability - The appellant filed a second review petition raising the same ground that no regular incumbents had joined. The High Court dismissed it as no fresh plea was taken. The Supreme Court found no error. (Paras 7, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a provisionally appointed Extra Departmental Employee can seek regularization of service by reason of prolonged service.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, but permitted the appellant to continue to hold the post of EDE till regular appointment is made, without any back wages. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Provisional appointment
- No right to regularization
- Termination upon regular appointment
- Extra Departmental Employee
- EDA (Conduct and Service) Rules 1964
