- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mahadeo Bhau Khilare (Mane) And Others v. State Of Maharashtra And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Appellant 2 started working as an unpaid “candidate” in the office of the Talathi, while Appellant 1 was engaged as an Assistant to a Talathi on 2 April 1979. Although the State Government had directed Revenue officials to discontinue such informal recruitments, Tahsildars continued to engage unpaid assistants who received 30% of each rupee earned for drafting documents.
In 1995 a group of unpaid assistants approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal seeking absorption into regular State service. On 30 November 1995 the Tribunal ordered the State to frame a scheme, which it did by Government Resolution dated 22 October 1996. The scheme set a cut-off date of 30 November 1995 and prescribed service-length, educational and employment-exchange registration requirements for absorption.
The appellants were not absorbed under the scheme and again moved the Tribunal. On 29 January 1999 the Tribunal directed that they be brought within the scheme, but on writ petitions by the State that order was quashed and the matter remitted. Ultimately, on 20 July 2001 the Tribunal held that Tahsildars had engaged the appellants without any legal authority. The appellants’ writ petitions against that finding were dismissed, leading to the present appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellants, as unpaid assistants engaged by Tahsildars, are entitled to absorption/regularisation under the Government Resolution dated 22 October 1996.
- Whether appointments made without any sanctioned post or compliance with statutory recruitment rules can confer a vested right to regularisation in State service.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The 1996 absorption scheme applies to them because they had rendered long service similar to others already regularised.
- Denying them absorption amounts to discrimination vis-à-vis other similarly situated unpaid assistants who have been absorbed.
Respondents' Arguments
- No sanctioned posts existed for “Assistant to Talathi”; the Tahsildars engaged the appellants on their own initiative.
- Because the appointments were unauthorised, the appellants do not fall within the purview of the 1996 scheme.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies (2004) 7 SCC 112 | An executive scheme cannot override statutory recruitment rules framed by the State. | Used to underscore that any absorption scheme contrary to existing recruitment rules would be legally unsustainable. |
| Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 | No vested right to regularisation exists when initial appointments were made in violation of the Constitution and recruitment rules. | Cited as the controlling authority that void appointments cannot be regularised. |
| Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh (2007) 2 SCC 491 | Reaffirmed Umadevi that illegal or irregular appointees cannot claim regularisation. | Relied upon to reject the appellants’ plea for absorption. |
| Punjab State Warehousing Corpn. v. Manmohan Singh (2007) 9 SCC 337 | Regularisation directions are impermissible where appointments ignore statutory rules. | Further support for the conclusion that the appellants’ engagements could not be regularised. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court assumed, arguendo, that the 1996 scheme was valid, but emphasised that it applied only to posts such as Stenotypist, Typist (Grade III) and other sanctioned Revenue posts. The appellants had never been appointed to any sanctioned post; rather, individual Talathis engaged them informally as personal assistants.
Key steps in the analysis were:
- No post of “Assistant to Talathi” was ever created or sanctioned; hence the appellants were never in State service.
- The State had expressly banned such informal appointments, demonstrating their illegality.
- Under Umarani and Umadevi, executive schemes cannot override recruitment rules, and irregular/void appointments cannot be regularised.
- Because the appellants were not State employees, the premise for invoking a right to regularisation collapsed; length of service cannot cure an inherently void appointment.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Dismissed; no costs.
Direct Consequence: The appellants are not entitled to absorption or regularisation and remain outside State service.
Broader Implications: The decision reiterates the Supreme Court’s consistent stance that workers engaged without sanctioned posts or in violation of recruitment rules acquire no equitable or legal right to be regularised, thereby reinforcing the principles laid down in Umadevi and related cases. No new precedent is set beyond applying established doctrine.
S.B Sinha, J.— Appellant 2 was initially appointed as a serving unpaid candidate in the office of “Talathi”. Such an appointment was made purported to be under the orders of Talathi permitting him to work in his office as unpaid candidate. Appellant 1 was appointed as Assistant to Talathi on 2-4-1979. The appellants had been engaged from time to time in the said post. Unpaid candidates, according to appellants themselves, used to receive 30 per cent out of every rupee received by the first respondent for writing of the document by the candidate. Revenue officials were directed by the State to stop such recruitment. Despite the same, however, recruitment of Assistants from persons like the appellants continued.
2. Allegedly, in the year 1995, some of the unpaid candidates filed an original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal wherein they sought for a direction in regard to their absorption in the services of the State. Therein a scheme was directed to be framed by the Tribunal by a judgment and order dated 30-11-1995. A scheme was thereafter framed by the State, the relevant portions whereof read as under:
“Government Resolution
(a) For absorption of unpaid copiers from the Revenue Department in the service of Administration the date of eligibility should be decided as the date of issuance of order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal i.e 30th November, 1995 (cut-off date).
(aa) The candidates who have completed 10 years of service on 30-11-1995 and are in service for more than a year, if apply for the post of Stenotypist, Typist in the IIIrd grade, Talathi or similar posts of Revenue Department, or for the post of IVth grade and if they hold the educational qualification for such posts and if they have registered their names in the Employment Exchange Office while absorption in the said vacant post the age-limit be relaxed. Similar condition of their appointment by the Recruitment Committee will not apply.
(uu) In the case of unpaid copiers the Collector and other local Revenue Officers should execute as follows:
(a) The unpaid copiers from the Revenue Department who have been serving till 30th November, 1995 for more than 10 years such cases may be scrutinised by the Collector and he should enquire from the copier to which posts he wishes to be absorbed. If the candidate has educational qualification prescribed and if he has registered his name in the Employment Exchange then a list of seniority of such copiers be prepared and he be appointed as per the above scheme.
(2) Those unpaid copiers have served less than 10 years or more than 3 years as on 30th November, 1995 then after taking into consideration their educational qualification, their names be forwarded to the local Selection Committee and in case of continuous three candidates relaxation of age-limit as per the government scheme be informed. Such an unpaid copier be asked to make application directly to the Selection Board.
(3) Henceforth, all the Revenue Officers are asked to carefully follow the orders issued by Government Circular No. EAST/1083/3618/483-E-7 dated 13th February, 1987, Revenue & Forest Department.”
3. The appellants, however, were not appointed under the said scheme. They moved the Tribunal again. By a judgment dated 29-1-1999, the respondents were directed by the Tribunal to bring the appellants within the purview of the said scheme. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the respondents filed several writ applications which were allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal.
4. Ultimately, the Tribunal in its order dated 20-7-2001 opined that the work from the appellants were taken by the Tahsildars on their own without having any authority whatsoever in that behalf. Writ petitions preferred by the appellants thereagainst have been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.
5. Mr R.S Hegde, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the scheme dated 22-10-1996 framed by the State of Maharashtra would apply to the appellants also and in that view of the matter as also having regard to the fact that a large number of persons similarly situated have already been absorbed in the services of the State, there is absolutely no reason as to why they should be discriminated against.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that not only there is no sanctioned post, the purported recruitments had been made by the Tahsildars to assist them and as such the appellants do not come within the purview of the said scheme.
7. Indisputably, the State of Maharashtra has framed recruitment rules. Any scheme by way of an executive instruction in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India, if violative of such statutory rules would not be legally sustainable. (See A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies (2004) 7 SCC 112.)
8. The question in regard to the existence of any vested legal right, inter alia, is such by above appointees and/or daily wagers, to be absorbed/regularised in the State services came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1.
9. It was categorically held therein that regularisation in service, in cases where the appointments were void ab initio, having been made in utter disregard of the existing recruitment rules and/or constitutional scheme adumberated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be wholly illegal and thus the direction in this behalf can be issued. (See also Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh (2007) 2 SCC 491, (2006) 13 Scale 426 and Punjab State Warehousing Corpn. v. Manmohan Singh (2007) 9 SCC 337, (2007) 3 Scale 401.)
10. In terms of the said scheme, Stenotypists, Typists of the IIIrd grade or similar posts of the Revenue Department could be absorbed in the State service. We would assume that the said scheme was valid in law, although it was not in view of the decision of this Court in Umarani (2004) 7 SCC 112. The appellants were appointed by Talathis as their assistants. They only used to assist the Talathis in their day-to-day work. They were never appointed as Talathis. No such post of Assistant to Talathis had been created and/or sanctioned by any competent authority. No recruitment rule therefor was framed. Therefore, their appointments were illegal. The State had also imposed a ban on appointment of such persons. In any event, they were appointed by the employees themselves to help them and not by any authority having the requisite jurisdiction therefor.
11. Appointments made without following the statutory rules by the State and that too without any remuneration whatsoever was itself unconstitutional.
12. Before a person furthermore can claim regularisation in the services of the State, he must be in the service of the State. If the appellants were not in the services of the State, question of their being regularised therein, in our opinion, would be wholly impermissible. The appellants might have worked for a long time but the same by itself is not decisive inasmuch as they had not been occupying any post having not been appointed by the State. Any action on the part of a servant of a State on his own, having no authority in that behalf, would be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
13. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the view that no case has been made out for our interference with the impugned judgment. Appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
Alert