Case Note & Summary
The State of Tamil Nadu filed these intra-court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the common order dated 22.09.2017 passed by a single judge in writ petitions W.P.Nos.4989 and 4990 of 2014. The respondents in the appeals had originally filed the writ petitions seeking regularisation of their services as sweepers, claiming they were engaged on daily wage basis. The single judge allowed the writ petitions, directing their regularisation. Aggrieved, the State filed the present appeals contending that the respondents had not completed 10 years of continuous service and were engaged without following any statutory recruitment procedure, thus disentitling them to regularisation. When the appeals came up for hearing, the respondents’ counsel fairly conceded that the issue was covered by an earlier Division Bench judgment dated 15.07.2024 in W.A.160 of 2021. That earlier judgment had extensively dealt with the constitutional scheme of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, holding that backdoor appointments cannot be regularised and that equal opportunity must be ensured by open advertisement and due process. The court extracted the relevant passages from that judgment which reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The crux of the issue was that any appointment made in violation of statutory rules and Articles 14 and 16 is a nullity, and regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment. The court observed that such appointments, if regularised, would infringe the fundamental rights of lakhs of eligible youth. Accordingly, the Division Bench, without any further independent reasoning, allowed the writ appeals and set aside the common order of the single judge. The court held that the respondents, having been engaged through backdoor methods and not completing the requisite years of service, were not entitled to regularisation, but they could participate in future recruitment drives if otherwise eligible.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Backdoor Appointments - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14 and 16 - The Division Bench, in intra-court appeals filed by the State, set aside the order of the writ court that directed regularisation of daily wage sweepers who had not completed 10 years of service and were engaged without following any recruitment process. Following the earlier Division Bench judgment in W.A.160 of 2021, the court held that equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandate and any appointment made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 is void. Backdoor appointments cannot be regularised as it infringes fundamental rights of other eligible candidates. Held that regularisation is not a mode of appointment and such employees may only participate in proper recruitment processes. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ court's order directing regularisation of daily wage sweepers engaged without following statutory recruitment procedure is sustainable in view of the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The appeals were allowed and the common order of the writ court dated 22.09.2017 was set aside. The Division Bench, following its earlier judgment in W.A.160 of 2021, held that the respondents were not entitled to regularisation as their appointments were backdoor and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court reiterated that regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment and that all public employment must be through open advertisement and due process.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Regularisation is not a mode of appointment
- all appointments must comply with Articles 14 and 16
- requiring open advertisement and equal opportunity
- backdoor appointments cannot be regularised
- daily wage workers not completing 10 years service cannot claim regularisation
- constitutional scheme of public employment overrides executive decisions to regularise illegal appointments.
