E. Ramakrishnan And Others v. State Of Kerala And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners were appointed as field workers in the Filaria Department of the State Government between 1981 and 1985. They initially filed WP No. 250 of 1992, in which the High Court (by judgment dated 18-1-1993) directed the Government to consider and dispose of their representation. Thereafter, when they approached the Supreme Court, the Court directed the Government to consider their cases in the light of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh.

Subsequently, alleging that the Government had not taken steps, the petitioners filed another writ petition. In the meantime, the Public Service Commission (PSC) had selected candidates who were not being appointed; those selectees approached the High Court by writ petitions. The petitioners also filed writ petitions before the High Court seeking regularisation. By the impugned order dated 24-6-1996 in OP No. 17422 of 1993, the High Court dismissed the petitioners’ batch of writ petitions, allowed the selectees’ writ petitions, and directed the Government to appoint PSC-selected candidates and to send requisition to fill 30 vacancies from the PSC list. The petitioners then filed the present special leave petition challenging that outcome.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether long-serving field workers appointed between 1981 and 1985 were entitled to regularisation of service in light of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, despite recruitment norms requiring appointment through PSC selection.
2. Whether a Government decision to regularise ad hoc employees could be acted upon when it would run contrary to the constitutional/statutory requirement of recruitment through the PSC under Article 320 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the petitioners’ overage status could justify a direction to regularise them by filling unfilled posts, or whether they must instead seek age relaxation and compete through PSC selection.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

• Relying on State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, the petitioners argued that since they had continued for more than 14 years, they were required to be regularised.
• The petitioners relied on a Government order/decision that contemplated regularisation of ad hoc employees.
• The petitioners contended that they had become overaged and therefore the Court should direct regularisation by filling unfilled posts.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first addressed the petitioners’ claim for regularisation based on the law in Piara Singh and their asserted length of service (over 14 years). It found the contention to be without force because, on the admitted position, the posts were to be filled through selection by the PSC in accordance with recruitment norms. Since requisition had been sent, candidates were selected, and those eligible candidates were recommended by the PSC, the Court held that they were required to be appointed. In that setting, the High Court was correct in declining to regularise the petitioners.

The Court then considered reliance on a Government order deciding to regularise ad hoc employees. It held that such a decision could not stand where it “runs into the teeth” of the statutory requirement under Article 320 of the Constitution, and the Government could not regularise candidates dehors the recruitment rules and statutory process of PSC selection. On this basis, it affirmed the High Court’s direction to notify vacancies (including “30 vacancies and odd or whatever may be the vacancies existing”) and fill them from among PSC-selected candidates.

Finally, on the plea of overage, the Court held that it could not direct regularisation by filling unfilled posts. If the petitioners had become overaged as of the date of recruitment, it was for the Government to consider relaxing the age requirement; however, the petitioners would still need to “stand in the queue” and obtain selection through the PSC. The Court indicated that what the petitioners obtain is only the right to appointment to the post (as stated in the opinion), subject to the applicable process.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED. The special leave petition was dismissed.

The direct effect is that the High Court’s directions stand: the Government must appoint candidates selected and recommended by the PSC and proceed to fill the notified vacancies from the PSC list, while the petitioners are not granted regularisation. The opinion does not indicate that any new precedent was set beyond applying the requirement of PSC-based recruitment (including the reference to Article 320) to the petitioners’ regularisation claim.