- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pankaj Gupta And Others v. State Of J&K And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants are Class IV employees (orderlies, process servers, guards, etc.) appointed in 1997 by various departmental heads of the State of Jammu & Kashmir on recommendations from Members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. Their appointments were challenged on the ground that no public advertisement or prescribed selection procedure was followed. A learned Single Judge declared the appointments illegal and ordered removal from service. The Division Bench affirmed that decision. The present civil appeals were filed against the Division Bench’s judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether appointments to Class IV posts made without public notification, competitive selection, or adherence to recruitment rules are valid under law.
- Whether employees so appointed acquire a right to be regularised or continued in service because they have worked for many years and have crossed the upper age-limit for fresh entry.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The appointments were made pursuant to a government decision taken after legislative debate about inadequate rural representation in government jobs.
- Departmental heads were competent authorities for Class IV recruitment; hence the appointments are legally valid.
- Given their long service since 1997 and the fact that many have now crossed the maximum entry age, the appellants should be regularised.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court rejected the contention that a legislative discussion or recommendations from legislators could bypass statutory recruitment procedures. It found:
- No government notification was issued inviting applications for the posts.
- No evidence existed of any approved criteria or recruitment rules being followed.
- Appointments made in violation of constitutional and statutory mandates confer no right to regularisation.
Recognising the appellants’ long tenure and the State’s original intent to improve rural representation, the Court undertook an equitable “moulding of relief.” It directed that:
- All vacant Class IV posts be advertised within six months and filled in accordance with recruitment rules.
- Appellants be allowed to apply for those posts.
- Relaxation be granted with respect to the upper age-limit, but not with respect to minimum educational or other eligibility criteria.
- Appellants may continue in service until regular recruitment is completed.
Holding and Implications
Appeals DISPOSED OF with directions.
Immediate Effect: The appellants do not obtain regularisation but are allowed to continue temporarily and compete for duly advertised posts with age relaxation.
Broader Implications: The decision reinforces the principle that public employment must comply with constitutional and statutory recruitment procedures; political recommendations cannot substitute for transparent selection. No new legal precedent was expressly set, but the ruling underscores the limits of equitable regularisation where initial appointments are patently illegal.
K.G Balakrishnan, J.— Leave granted.
2. The appellants in these civil appeals are Class IV employees in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. They were all appointed in 1997 and ever since their appointment, they have been working as orderlies, process servers, guards, etc. The appointments of these appellants were challenged by the respondents on various grounds. The respondents alleged that there was no advertisement calling for applications to fill up the vacancies of Class IV employees and the names of these appellants were suggested by the Members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council and the heads of various departments appointed these appellants based on such recommendations. The learned Single Judge before whom the various writ petitions came up for consideration held that the appointments of these appellants were illegal and were not made in accordance with law. The appellants herein contended that on 11-11-1997, there was a government decision made by the State of Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to a detailed discussion on the Floor of the Legislative Assembly regarding lack of proper representation of rural masses as compared to urban candidates in government jobs. It was probably felt that only persons staying in urban areas could get adequate education, and thereby obtained government jobs and it was in these circumstances that various Members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council made their recommendations for appointment of these appellants to Class IV posts.
3. The learned Single Judge, after elaborate discussions on the matter held that appointments of these appellants were illegal and they were liable to be removed from service. These appellants preferred an appeal and by the impugned judgment, the Division Bench confirmed the judgment of the Single Judge.
4. We heard the appellants' counsel and counsel for the respondents. The counsel for the appellants contended that the appointments were made pursuant to a government decision and the names of these appellants were recommended by various Members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. It was argued that the heads of various departments were competent to make appointments to Class IV posts and, therefore, the appointments of these appellants are legal. We are unable to accept this contention. Admittedly, these posts were not notified by the Government. There was no publication of a notification inviting applications for filling up these posts. The names of these appellants were recommended by the Members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly for appointment. There is no evidence to show that any criteria approved by the Government or any rules of recruitment were followed while making these appointments. It may be true that the appellants may have been habitants of rural areas and there was no adequate representation for this rural population in government jobs. But the Government or the heads of various departments could have formulated and resorted to some rational modalities approved under the rules of recruitment to see that rural population also got adequate representation in public employment. But the same could be done within the constitutional limitations.
5. The appellants' counsel lastly pointed out that all these appellants have been working since the last several years and many of them have already crossed the maximum age fixed for entry to government service, hence they may be regularised.
6. No person illegally appointed or appointed without following the procedure prescribed under the law, is entitled to claim that he should be continued in service. In this situation, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appointees have no right to regularisation in the service because of the erroneous procedure adopted by the authority concerned in appointing such persons. Hence, the reliefs are required to be moulded especially in view of the fact that the appellants were appointed as early as in the year 1997 and ever since they have been working as orderlies, process servers, guards, etc. Moreover, the appointments of the appellants were made on the basis of the recommendations of the members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council and on the basis of the decision made by the State of Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to a detailed discussion on the Floor of the Legislative Assembly regarding lack of proper representation of rural masses as compared to urban candidates in government jobs. Hence, we issue the following directions:
1. All the vacant posts shall be notified for appointment and applications called for in accordance with the rules within six months from the date of the receipt of this judgment.
2. All the appellants herein may be permitted to submit application for appointment against such notification.
3. As regards the upper age-limit, these appellants shall be given relaxation but there shall not be any relaxation in the matter of the basic qualifications for appointment to Class IV posts.
4. The appellants may be allowed to continue in service till such regular recruitments are made and these posts are filled up by a regular process of appointment.
7. All these appeals shall stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert