Accounts Officer (A&I) Apsrtc & Ors Vs. K. V. Ramana & Ors  Insc 17 (8
B. Sinha & Markandey Katju (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.9098 of /2004) [With Ca Nos. 97/2007 @ Slp(Civil) No.10348/2004] Markandey
appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court dated 30.4.2003 in Writ Appeal No.629 of 2003 and Writ Appeal No.584
of 2003. For the sake of convenience we will deal with the facts of Civil Appeal
arising out of SLP(C) No.9098/2004.
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
facts of the case are that the respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal were
appointed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "the corporation") as contract sweeper and attender on
1.5.1992 and respondent no.3 was appointed as such on 1.8.1992. They submitted
representations to appellant no.1 and 2 for regularization of their services
claiming that they have completed 240 days of continuous service without any
break but since 10.5.1998 the appellants were not giving them work. Hence the
respondents filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.10678 of 1996 which
was disposed of by the High Court on 17.10.1997 directing the corporation to
consider the case of these employees for regularization of service.
order dated 31.3.1998 the representation of the writ petitioners was rejected
on the ground that their regularization can only be considered when they are
recruited through the prescribed Departmental Selection Committee and after
undergoing a selection process. Since, they were not selected and appointed in
accordance with the aforesaid procedure, their case for regularization could
not be considered. Aggrieved the respondents (writ petitioners) filed a writ
appeal no.6948 of 1999 which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High
counter affidavit filed by the Corporation in the writ petition it was stated
that the petitioners were entrusted the work of the attender/sweeper on casual
basis on a consolidated pay, drawn through a pay order on certification of the
work every month, but they were not issued any appointment order. It was also
submitted that as per the circular of the Corporation dated 1.5.1996 there was
no provision to engage anyone on contract basis or on consolidated pay. The
writ petitioner had not undergone the Departmental Selection process and as
such they were not entitled for regularization.
counsel for the writ petitioners (the respondents in this appeal) relied on the
circular of the Corporation dated 26.10.1988 wherein guidelines were issued to
engage the existing contract labour, such as cleaners including piecemeal rated
labour against the sanctioned vacancies.
of this circular, it was contended that the writ petitioners were entitled for
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed regularization of
the writ petitioners within six weeks. Aggrieved the Corporation filed an appeal
before the Division Bench of the High Court which was rejected by the impugned
judgment. Hence, these appeals by special leave.
opinion these appeals have to be allowed. It has been held by a Constitution
Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs.
(3) & Ors., 2006(4) SCC1 that absorption, regularization or permanent
continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees dehors
the rules and constitutional scheme of public employment cannot be granted by
the Courts. As regards the circular dated 31.3.1998 the same cannot override
Article 16 of the Constitution, and hence regularization cannot be granted
under the said circular. Even if the contract labourers or casual workers or ad
hoc employees have worked for a long period they cannot be regularized dehors
the rules for selection, as has been held in Uma Devi's case (supra).
following the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Uma Devi's
case (supra), these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the
Division Bench and of the learned Single Judge are set aside, and the writ
petitions are dismissed