State Of U.P And Others v. Ajay Kumar .

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent was appointed on a daily-wage basis on 14-2-1985 as a Class IV employee (Nursing Orderly) in a Medical College by the Medical Superintendent. The appointment was made without calling for applications.

The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking regularisation of his services. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent had not pointed to any statutory rule under which he could be regularised on the basis of his service as a daily-wage earner, and further noting that the method of recruitment adopted by the Medical Superintendent was improper.

The respondent then filed a special appeal. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, by judgment dated 9-11-1995 in Special Appeal No. 302 of 1995, reversed the decision of the Single Judge and issued directions to regularise the respondent’s services as and when a vacancy arose and to continue him until then.

The present appeal by special leave was filed against the Division Bench judgment. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard counsel on both sides.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a daily-wage appointee, engaged without following a proper method of recruitment and without reference to any statutory rule, can claim regularisation of service.
2. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in directing the regularisation of the respondent’s services to a post as and when a vacancy arose and directing that he be continued until then.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court described the factual and legal context as an “admitted position,” indicating there was no dispute that the respondent was appointed on a daily-wage basis as a Class IV employee by the Medical Superintendent, and that the appointment process itself was irregular because applications were not invited.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court had refused relief on two main grounds: (i) the respondent had failed to bring to the Court’s notice any statutory rule that would permit his regularisation on the strength of the service rendered as a daily-wage worker; and (ii) the method of recruitment adopted by the Medical Superintendent was improper since no applications were called for. The Supreme Court endorsed this approach by upholding the Single Judge’s order in the final result.

The Supreme Court then articulated what it described as the “settled legal position” governing appointments and regularisation:

• There must exist a post to which a person can be appointed.
• There must be either administrative instructions or statutory rules in operation under which such an appointment can be made.
• Daily-wage appointments are ordinarily related to the contingent establishment, in which there is no sanctioned post; such employment subsists only so long as the work exists.

On this legal foundation, the Court held that the Division Bench had clearly erred in directing the appellant to regularise the respondent’s services to a post as and when a vacancy arose and to continue him until that time. Since daily-wage employment, by its nature, is tied to contingent work and not to a sanctioned post, and in the absence of any statutory rule or proper recruitment procedure, the High Court’s direction to regularise was described as “obviously, illegal.”

Holding and Implications

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and clarified the status of the conflicting High Court orders:

Holding: The appeal is ALLOWED. The order of the learned Single Judge is upheld, and the judgment and directions of the Division Bench are set aside. No costs are awarded.

Implications: The immediate consequence is that the respondent is not entitled to regularisation of his services based on his daily-wage appointment. The Division Bench’s directions to regularise the respondent against a future vacancy and to continue him until such vacancy arises are declared illegal and are nullified. The decision reaffirms, for the parties, that regularisation cannot be ordered in the absence of an existing post and applicable rules or administrative instructions, and that daily-wage employment is confined to contingent work only. The opinion does not indicate that any broader or new precedent beyond this reaffirmation was intended.