Kumar Verma & Ors Vs. State of Bihar Through Secretary, Department of Urban  INSC 45 (17 January 1997)
RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
O R D E
appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Patna
High Court, made on 11.09.1996 in LPA No. 788/95.
admitted position is that the appellants came to be appointed as Assistant
Engineers on daily wages @ Rs.40/- per day on November 16, 1987. Subsequently, they were placed in the pay scale of
Rs.880-1510/- per month, They came to be selected by conducting examinations
and the appointments, accordingly, came to be made. An attempt was made by 2nd
respondent, Regional Development Authority to regularise the service and the
proposal was sent to the Government for acceptance. The Government accepting
the proposal had referred the Public service Commission did not agree to the regularisation
of their services, the appellants filed writ petition in the High Court for a
mandamus directing the authority to regularise their services. The High Court
in the impugned order refused to give directions, Thus, this appeal by special
Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that
Section 6(3) of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 ( for short,
the `Act' ) gives power to the Authority to appoint the Secretary and other
officers and employees of the Authority.
proviso thereto, the appointing Authority has the power to appoint any person
for a period not exceeding six months on any post carrying the minimum salary
of Rs. 500/- and above after approval of the State Government and the
appointment though for six months will be on regular basis.
authority has not made any statutory rules for the mode of recruitment. The
advertisement did not indicate that these were temporary appointments.
Therefore, the appellants are entitled to be regularised in the service. We
find no force in the contention.
6(3) of the Act only empowers the Authority to appoint the Secretary, and other
officers and employees of the Authority. The power under the proviso is only a
breathing elbow power given to the Authority to make temporary appointments so
that the work of the Development Authority goes on pending recruitment.
Therefore, when the advertisement was made for the recruitment, it was
obviously in furtherance of the recruitment, it was obviously in furtherance of
the power flown under the proviso for a limited period. Thereby, the
appointments obviously are only temporary appointments had sought assistance of
the Government for regularisation which was negatived by the Public Service
Commission. It is seen that these posts are within the purview of the Public
the Government sought the concurrence of the Public Service Commission and the
Public Service Commission had not concurred and, in our view, correctly with
the request made by the Government. Therefore, any regularisation in violation
of the recruitment to be made by the Public Service Commission is in
contravention of the law. The High Court therefore, rightly did not issue any
mandamus for regularisation of the services made in contravention of the Rules
to violate and no mandamus or direction would be issued to violate law.
appeal is accrdingly dismissed. No costs.