Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

In the case of Jolly P.G. v. Union of India and Others O.P. (CAT) No.

2301 OF 2011, The basis of


the relief granted to the petitioner was the operative part of the Uma Devi case (2006) 4 SCC 1.
The respondent relied on majorly Satya Prakash & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors (2010) 4
SCC 179 and State of Rajasthan v Daya Lal (2011) 2 SCC 429. As the respondent pleaded
that the petitioner was engaged as a mere casual employee who was employed irregularly and
there was no sanctioned post available for his appointment.
Secretary, State of Karnataka v Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1- The operative part is
the paragraph 44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular
appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N.
NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15
above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the
employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of
courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have
to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above
referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State
Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure,
the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly
sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure
that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be
filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The
process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that
regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this
judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and
regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.

Satya Prakash and others v State of Bihar and others (2010) 4 SCC 179- Referring to the
Uma Devi case, the court relied on the observation of the court and distinguished between Illegal
and irregular employment.
"If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the
Constitution illegality cannot be regularized. Ratification or regularization is possible of an act
which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some noncompliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment.
Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment."1
"We have, therefore, to keep this distinction in mind and proceed on the basis that only
something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of
1 B.N. Nanjudappa vs. T. Thimmiah (1972)1 SCC 409 as cited in Uma Devi case.

selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized and that it alone can be
regularized and granting permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot be
equated with regularization."2
Paragraph 7-9 of the Satya Prakash case and Paragraph 12 of Daya Lal case state that there is a
difference between irregularly engaged and illegally engaged without a sanctioned post. These
cases amend the operative part of Uma Devi case. Read together, these maintain that a casual
employee given an unsanctioned post cannot claim the benefits of the Uma Devi Case.
The cases pleaded by the petitioner and as considered by the court can also be countered.
With reference to State of Karnataka v M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 on which the appellant
relied, the case itself recognizes the difference between irregular and illegal employment.
The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the
appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed
do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be
illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working
against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open
competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.
The later decision of State of Rajasthan v Daya Lal (2011) 2 SCC 429 is more legally relevant
than the 2010 decision. Though, there is no controversy between the two, as both maintain that in
case of a person not being appointed against a sanctioned post, he will not be amenable to the
benefit of regularization.
As for the Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar and others (2015) 8 SCC 265, it is made clear by
the court that the appellant though initially employed against an unsanctioned post was later
working continuously against a sanctioned post since 3.1.2002. If it could be shown that the
appellant was not hired or working against a sanctioned post, the case law cannot be applied to
make him amenable to the benefit of regularization.
A similar situation arose in the case of Nihal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
(2013) 14 SCC 65, the people claiming regularization were appointed as Special Police Officers.
In this case, the court states that the employment of the offices cannot be said to be irregular. The
need for the creation of the sanctioned post was overshadowed by the necessity of the act and the
failure of the state to do the same. Thus, the court allowed the appeals. This is not good
precedent to the given case as there is a situation of an irregular and unsanctioned job created
without any necessity.
With reference to State of Jharkhand and others v Kamal Prasad and others (2014) 7 SCC
223, the argument can be made that they were appointed on temporary basis but the
2 B N Nagarajan v State of Karnataka (1979) 4 SCC 507 as cited in Uma Devi Case.

advertisements by the government show that there were sanctioned posts available. However, in
the present case, there is no evidence of any sanctioned post available against which the
appellant was working.