Supreme Court Denies Regularization to College Employee: Upendra Singh vs. State of Bihar (23 February 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2018
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2356 of 2018
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.
Can a college employee, initially appointed by a private college, claim regularization and regular salary after the college becomes a constituent of the State University? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a case where an employee sought regularization after years of service. The Court ultimately ruled against the employee, upholding the decisions of the High Court. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan, with Justice A.K. Sikri authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Upendra Singh, was initially appointed in Grade III of the non-teaching category at K.D.S. College (respondent No. 8) on January 24, 1978. At the time of his appointment, the college was a private entity. In 1980, the Government of Bihar decided to convert affiliated colleges into ‘Constituent Colleges’ of the University. Consequently, K.D.S. College became a Constituent College of Bihar University on June 16, 1981. Following this, the college absorbed all its employees, including the appellant. However, the University did not pay regular salaries to the appellant and some other Grade III and IV employees.

The College Employees’ Federation made several representations regarding the non-payment of salaries. An agreement was reached on April 26, 1989, between the State of Bihar, the Bihar State University, and the College Employees’ Federation to absorb employees based on a Staffing Pattern. The college scrutinized its records and recommended the names of non-teaching staff, including the appellant, for absorption on December 22, 1989. A three-man Staffing Committee appointed by the University inspected the records but did not make a final decision. The appellant and others filed a writ petition in the High Court in 1997, which was disposed of on May 5, 1999, directing the State Government to take a decision. The Bihar University rejected the claims of these employees on August 30, 1999/September 15, 1999, and directed them not to work in the College. This action was challenged, and the employees were taken back, but without regular pay. Further litigation ensued, with the High Court directing consideration of the employees’ claims. The college informed the University on June 11, 2009, that there were 25 sanctioned posts, 15 for Grade IV and 10 for Grade III employees. Despite this, no decision was made, leading to the filing of Writ Petition No. 16667 of 2010, which was dismissed by the High Court on February 1, 2013. The Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) against this decision were also dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant and other employees initially filed a writ petition in the High Court in 1997, which was disposed of on May 5, 1999, directing the State Government to take an appropriate decision. Subsequently, the Bihar University rejected their claims on August 30, 1999/September 15, 1999, leading to further writ petitions. The High Court passed orders to consider their claims. The High Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 16667 of 2010 on February 1, 2013, leading to the filing of Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs), which were also dismissed by the High Court on July 25, 2013. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court after being dissatisfied by the outcome.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of the rules and regulations governing the appointment and regularization of employees in Constituent Colleges of Bihar University. The judgment refers to clause (1) of the Manual of Bihar University Laws (Part – I), which deals with the appointment and powers of the Vice Chancellor. Sub-clause (6) stipulates that the Vice Chancellor has the power to make appointments to posts within the sanctioned grades and scales of pay and within the sanctioned strength of the ministerial staff. This means that the Vice Chancellor can only appoint against sanctioned posts within the sanctioned grades.

The Supreme Court also considered the law pertaining to regularization as laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1. This case established that the regularization of daily wagers appointed contrary to law does not arise. The Court also discussed the exception in Umadevi, which allowed for regularization as a one-time measure for those working on an ad hoc/daily wage basis for more than ten years, provided they were appointed to a duly sanctioned post and were not continuing under the cover of court orders.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in assuming that the Government had not agreed to regularize the appellant. The State Government had agreed to regularization as per the agreement dated April 26, 1989, with the University and the College Employees’ Federation.
• The appellant contended that the High Court wrongly assumed that the appellant was appointed after the cut-off date of July 12, 1980. The appellant was appointed on January 24, 1978, much before the cut-off date.
• The appellant argued that he was appointed after following due process of recruitment against a sanctioned post. He has been working for more than two decades. The college attained the status of a ‘Constituent College’, and the University refused to pay the salary of the regular staff. A decision was taken to regularise the services on the basis of Staffing Pattern as far back as on May 10, 1991, by a resolution of the State Government. Despite fulfilling all the conditions, the benefit was not extended to him.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that the appellant’s case was not covered by the resolution on Staffing Pattern. There were no sanctioned posts when the appellant was appointed, nor did any such post exist thereafter.
• The respondent contended that the appellant was not appointed against a sanctioned post or after following the due procedure. The appointment was made by the college on its own.
• The respondent submitted that the University was within its rights not to regularize those persons who were not appointed against a sanctioned post when the college became a Constituent College.
• The respondent referred to clause (1) of the Manual of Bihar University Laws (Part – I), which stipulates that the Vice Chancellor has the power to make appointments to posts within the sanctioned grades and scales of pay and within the sanctioned strength of the ministerial staff.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue before the Court was:

• Whether the appellant was entitled to regularization of his services and payment of regular salary, considering his appointment by a private college that later became a constituent college of the State University.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Manual of Bihar University Laws (Part – I), clause (1), sub-clause (6): The Court used this provision to emphasize that the Vice Chancellor’s power to appoint is limited to sanctioned posts within sanctioned grades.
• Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1: The Court relied heavily on this judgment, stating that it authoritatively determined the law on regularization, which prohibits the regularization of daily wagers appointed contrary to law. The Court also noted the exception in Umadevi, which allowed for regularization as a one-time measure for those working on an ad hoc/daily wage basis for more than ten years, provided they were appointed to a duly sanctioned post and were not continuing under the cover of court orders. The Court found that the appellant did not fall under this exception.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Illegality of Initial Appointment: The Court emphasized that the appellant’s initial appointment was not in accordance with law. It was made without advertisement, without a recommendation from the Selection Committee, and not by the competent authority.
• Absence of Sanctioned Post: The Court noted that the appellant was not appointed against a sanctioned post, which was a crucial requirement for regularization. The University had agreed to regularize only those employees whose initial appointment was after following due procedure and against a sanctioned post.
• Precedent of Umadevi: The Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, which prohibits the regularization of daily wagers appointed contrary to law. The Court stated that the appellant’s case did not fall under the exception provided in Umadevi, as the appellant’s case was sub-judice and the appointment was not against a sanctioned post.

The Court’s reasoning process for the issue is explained below:

The Court considered the arguments made by the appellant that he was appointed through due process and that the State Government had agreed to regularize the employees. However, the Court rejected these arguments based on the fact that the initial appointment was not in accordance with law and that the appellant was not appointed against a sanctioned post. The Court also considered the exception in Umadevi, which allowed for regularization as a one-time measure for those working on an ad hoc/daily wage basis for more than ten years, provided they were appointed to a duly sanctioned post and were not continuing under the cover of court orders. The Court found that the appellant did not meet these conditions.

The Court’s decision was clear and concise, stating that the appellant’s initial appointment was not in accordance with law and therefore, he was not entitled to regularization. The Court also emphasized that the University had agreed to regularize only those employees whose initial appointment was after following due procedure and against a sanctioned post.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“We note that the cases of these persons, including the appellant, were duly considered by the University, on the basis of which order dated August 13, 2003 were passed refusing regularisation. This order specifically states that the initial appointment of the appellant and others was not in accordance with law. It was made without advertisement and there was no recommendation of panel by the Selection Committee. So much so, the appointments were not made by the competent authority.”

“Law pertaining to regularisation has now been authoritatively determined by a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1. On the application of law laid down in that case, it is clear that the question of regularisation of daily wager appointed contrary to law does not arise.”

“The Appellants clearly fall in the exception noticed in paragraph-53 of Umadevi (supra) as their claims were sub judice on the date the pronouncement of the Constitution Bench was made in view of pendency of C.W.J.C. No. 12235 of 2005 disposed subsequently on 29.08.2006. Such litigious continuation in employment stands excluded from the directions of Umadevi.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of following due process in appointments and the limitations on regularization as established in Umadevi. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that appointments made contrary to law cannot be regularized. This has significant implications for similarly situated employees.

Key Takeaways

• Appointments made without following due process, such as proper advertisement and selection by a competent authority, are not valid and cannot be regularized.
• Regularization is not a right, and it cannot be claimed by employees whose initial appointments were not in accordance with law.
• The judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, remains a guiding principle in matters of regularization, and the exceptions provided therein are to be strictly construed.
• Employees who continue in service under the cover of court orders cannot claim the benefit of regularization.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that employees whose initial appointments were not made in accordance with law and against sanctioned posts are not entitled to regularization, even if they have worked for a long period. This case reinforces the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, and does not introduce any new legal principles. The judgment clarifies the application of the Umadevi principles in cases where employees seek regularization based on long service but their initial appointments were irregular.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the appellant’s initial appointment was not in accordance with law, as it was made without advertisement and without the recommendation of a panel by the Selection Committee. The Court also emphasized that the appellant was not appointed against a sanctioned post. The Court relied on the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, which prohibits the regularization of daily wagers appointed contrary to law. The Court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to regularization.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law
Child Categories: Regularization of Employees, Appointment of Employees, Constituent Colleges, Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1

Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Categories: Article 14, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the case?
A: The main issue was whether a college employee, initially appointed by a private college, could claim regularization and regular salary after the college became a constituent of the State University.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court ruled against the employee, stating that his initial appointment was not in accordance with law and, therefore, he was not entitled to regularization.

Q: What does the judgment mean for other employees?
A: The judgment means that employees whose initial appointments were not made through a proper process, including advertisement and selection by a competent authority, cannot claim regularization, even if they have worked for a long period.

Q: What is the significance of the Umadevi case in this judgment?
A: The Supreme Court relied on the Umadevi judgment, which prohibits the regularization of daily wagers appointed contrary to law. The Court stated that the appellant’s case did not fall under the exception provided in Umadevi.

Q: What is the key takeaway from this judgment?
A: The key takeaway is that appointments must be made through a proper process, and regularization is not a right that can be claimed by employees whose initial appointments were irregular.