Constitution of India — Arts. 14, 16, 21 — Equality — Hostile discrimination
Where employees are appointed through the same channel and under identical statutory powers, differential treatment in the matter of regularization, based solely on labels such as “ad-hoc” or stipulations in appointment letters, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
(Paras 27–30)
High Court Staff — Appointment under Art. 229 — Powers of Chief Justice
Appointments made by the Chief Justice of a High Court in exercise of powers under Article 229 of the Constitution read with the applicable service rules constitute a valid channel of recruitment. Once similarly appointed employees are regularized, denial of the same benefit to others appointed through the same channel is impermissible.
(Paras 2–3, 23–27)
Regularization — Similarly situated employees
When several employees appointed under the same statutory provisions have been regularized, exclusion of a particular group without intelligible differentia or rational nexus is unconstitutional. Equality in public employment requires parity of treatment among similarly situated employees.
(Paras 23–28, 30)
Classification — Ad-hoc / non-ad-hoc — Validity
Mere stipulation in appointment orders describing employment as “ad-hoc”, when the nature of work, duties and channel of appointment are identical, does not constitute a valid basis for classification for purposes of regularization.
(Paras 25–28)
High Court as Model Employer
High Courts, being constitutional institutions, are expected to act as model employers and ensure fairness, non-arbitrariness and equality in their administrative actions relating to service matters.
(Paras 29–30)
Dead cadre — Subsequent amendments — Effect
Once similarly situated employees have been granted regularization notwithstanding declaration of a cadre as “dead” or subsequent amendments to service rules, denial of similar relief to others on that ground alone is unsustainable.
(Paras 26, 31)
Judicial review — Regularization — Exceptional cases
Though regularization ordinarily lies within the domain of employer policy, courts may intervene in exceptional cases where manifest discrimination is demonstrated and similarly placed employees have already been granted relief.
(Paras 33–34)
Constitution of India — Art. 142 — Complete justice
In exceptional circumstances involving long years of service and clear discrimination, the Supreme Court may invoke Article 142 to grant final relief of reinstatement and regularization to do complete justice between the parties.
(Paras 33–34)
Held
Impugned judgments of the High Court set aside. Appellants directed to be reinstated and regularized with all consequential benefits (except back wages for period not worked). Directions issued under Article 142.
(Paras 34–36)
B. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW (with Paragraph Numbers)
I. FACTUAL MATRIX (Paras 1–16)
-
The Appellants were appointed as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks (Class-III posts) in the Allahabad High Court under orders of the Chief Justice exercising powers under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules (paras 2–4).
-
Several similarly situated employees appointed through the same process were regularized from time to time, while the Appellants were denied such benefit (paras 1, 4, 23).
-
A Committee constituted pursuant to a Division Bench judgment dated 20-09-2011 recommended regularization of some categories of employees but excluded the Appellants on the ground that they were appointed on “ad-hoc” basis after the cut-off date under State Regularization Rules (paras 8–9, 23).
-
Representations of the Appellants were rejected, and writ petitions filed by them were ultimately dismissed by the High Court, leading to the present appeals (paras 13–16).
II. CORE ISSUE (Para 22)
Whether denial of regularization to the Appellants, despite regularization of similarly situated employees appointed through the same channel, was arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees of equality.
III. ANALYSIS OF LAW
A. Channel of Appointment and Parity (Paras 23–27)
The Court found that all three categories of employees (regularized and non-regularized) were appointed through the same statutory channel, namely the exercise of powers by the Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules. The difference in treatment was not founded on any difference in source of appointment.
B. Invalid Classification (Paras 25–28)
The distinction drawn between employees based on the description of appointments as “ad-hoc” or otherwise, or on the presence or absence of a stipulation regarding examination, was held to be superficial and lacking any rational nexus with the object of regularization.
C. Violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 (Paras 27–30)
The Court held that unequal treatment of similarly situated employees offended the principle of equality. Such arbitrariness was particularly impermissible when undertaken by a constitutional institution like a High Court.
D. Dead Cadre and Subsequent Amendments (Paras 31–32)
The plea that the cadre had become defunct or merged subsequently was rejected, as similarly placed employees had already been regularized notwithstanding such changes.
E. Power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 (Paras 33–34)
Given long years of service rendered by the Appellants and the manifest discrimination established on record, the Court exercised its power under Article 142 to grant final relief rather than remanding the matter.
IV. CONCLUSION / RATIO (Paras 34–36)
-
Denial of regularization to the Appellants was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
-
Impugned judgments of the High Court were set aside.
-
Appellants directed to be reinstated and regularized with consequential benefits (excluding back wages for the period not worked).
-
Directions confined to the facts of the case and not to be treated as precedent.
No comments:
Post a Comment