- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
P. Ravindran And Others v. Union Territory Of Pondicherry And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The special leave petitions arose from orders of the Administrative Tribunal dated 20-02-1996 in OA No. 290 of 1995 and connected matters. The petitioners had been appointed as Lecturers on an ad hoc basis and some had obtained M.Phil. and Ph.D. qualifications. When regular recruitment was conducted through the Public Service Commission, the petitioners also appeared but were not selected. Thereafter, they sought regularisation of their services through petitions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the request on the ground that the posts were required to be filled by open market recruitment through the Commission and that it lacked power to direct regularisation. The petitioners then filed the present special leave petitions. The Court also recorded that delay was condoned.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court/Tribunal can direct regularisation of ad hoc Lecturers when the posts are required to be filled through open market recruitment conducted by the Public Service Commission under the constitutional scheme.
- Whether regular recruitment through the Public Service Commission can be bypassed by a judicial direction to regularise ad hoc appointees who were not selected in the Commission’s recruitment process.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners were highly qualified (postgraduates; some with M.Phil. and Ph.D.).
- They had acquired experience as lecturers since 1987.
- At the time of their appointment, a number of vacancies were available.
- Having worked since 1987, they sought regularisation through suitable directions.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr Narinder Mohan (1994) 2 SCC 630, (1994) 27 ATC 56 | Courts cannot adopt a “hybrid” method of directing regularisation by bypassing the constitutionally envisaged selection process through the Public Service Commission; deprecates removing posts from the Commission’s purview (including via Article 320) to regularise services dehors the Commission. | The Court relied on this authority to hold that regular recruitment through the Commission cannot be circumvented by judicial directions regularising ad hoc appointees, and upheld the Tribunal’s rejection of regularisation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that the petitioners’ reliance on their qualifications and experience did not justify regularisation contrary to the constitutional recruitment framework. It emphasised that the Public Service Commission is entrusted with a constitutional duty to select suitable candidates through open competition by inviting applications from the open market, and that every candidate has a fundamental right to be considered in such recruitment. The petitioners also enjoyed this right and, in fact, had participated in the Commission’s selection process but were not selected.
In these circumstances, the Court reasoned that the recruitment process envisaged under the Constitution could not be bypassed by directing regularisation of ad hoc persons who entered service through what it termed “back-door entry.” It noted that this Court, in multiple decisions, has deprecated regularisation as a practice, except in extraordinary cases where the Government was directed to frame a scheme (particularly for Class III and IV services) and regularise in accordance with that scheme; it further observed that even this “leverage” was not insisted upon in subsequent decisions. Applying the principle reaffirmed in J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr Narinder Mohan, the Court concluded that courts cannot direct regularisation by a hybrid method that bypasses the Commission-based selection process. On that basis, it found the Tribunal’s rejection of the regularisation claim to be correct.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The special leave petitions were dismissed.
Implications: The petitioners were denied regularisation of their ad hoc lecturer appointments because regular recruitment through the Public Service Commission could not be circumvented. However, the dismissal was made subject to a limited protective direction: the petitioners were granted the benefit of relaxation of the age bar until the date of the next recruitment, so that their cases could be considered along with open candidates. The order does not indicate that any new precedent was set beyond applying existing principles.
Order
1. Delay condoned.
2. The special leave petitions arise from the orders of the Administrative Tribunal made on 20-2-1996 in OA No. 290 of 1995 and batch. The petitioners were appointed as Lecturers on ad hoc basis and some of them had obtained M.Phil, Ph.D also. When the regular recruitment through the Public Service Commission (“the Commission” for short) was conducted, the petitioners also appeared before the Commission but they were not selected. Subsequently, the petitioners filed petitions for regularisation of their services. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has pointed out that since posts are required to be filled up by recruitment from the open market through the Commission, the Tribunal has no power to issue direction to regularise the services. Thus, these special leave petitions.
3. Shri K.M.K Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners are postgraduates, M.Phil and Ph.D, and they are highly qualified and have acquired experience from 1987 as lecturers. When they were appointed, number of vacancies were available. Since they have been working since 1987, they require to be regularised by suitable directions. We find no force in the contention. The admitted position is that the Commission having been entrusted with the constitutional duty to select suitable candidates by inviting applications from the open market, every candidate has a fundamental right to seek consideration and for selection through open competition. The petitioners also have that right. At one time, they staked their claims but were not selected. Therefore, the process of recruitment through the Commission, as envisaged under the Constitution, cannot be bypassed by issuing direction for regularisation of the services of the ad hoc persons who had come to the service through back-door entry. This Court in a catena of decisions has deprecated this practice of regularisation except in extraordinary cases by directing the Government to frame a scheme and regularise Classes III and IV services in accordance with the scheme. Even in subsequent decisions, that leverage is not being insisted upon. This Court in J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr Narinder Mohan (1994) 2 SCC 630, (1994) 27 ATC 56 had held that the Court cannot adopt hybrid process of direction to regularise the services bypassing the process of selection envisaged under the Constitution. This Court has deprecated the Government for exercising the power under Article 320 of the Constitution taking out the posts from the purview of the Commission and to regularise services dehors the Commission. Under those circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim to grant the relief sought for.
4. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed subject to the benefit of relaxation of age bar till the date of next recruitment so as to consider the cases of the petitioners along with open candidates.
Alert