Constitution of India

— Arts. 12, 14 and 16 — Instrumentalities of State (government company) — Employment in — Scheme for — Necessity to comply with recruitment rules framed — Held, any body which falls within definition of <169>State<170> under Art. 12 is bound to comply with the constitutional requirements as adumbrated in Arts. 14 and 16 — When recruitment rules are made, employer is bound to comply with the same — Any appointment in violation of such rules would render such appointment a nullity, (2006) 5 SCC 493-A

Service Law

Appointment

— Modes of appointment — Permissible modes — Regularisation of appointment made without following rules — Impermissibility — Held, regularisation is not a mode of employment — If appointment is made without following the rules, same being a nullity, question of confirmation of an employee upon expiry of the purported period of probation would not arise, (2006) 5 SCC 493-B

Service Law

Regularisation

— Irregular and illegal appointments — Distinction — Regularisation when permissible — Long continuance in work — Effect — In present case, respondents claiming that their appointments were irregular and not illegal, in the sense distinguished in Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, paras 15-17 — Sustainability of such a claim — The recruitment rules not having been followed, the Selection Committee not having been properly constituted as required, their appointments being in violation of a recruitment ban that had been in place, and there being other irregularities also in their appointment, held, judged by the standards laid down by the Supreme Court, appointments of respondents were illegal — They do not thus have any legal right to continue in service — Fact that they had been working for a long time, was not a ground for directing regularisation of their services, in view of the ruling in Umadevi (3), Shortnote A, (2006) 5 SCC 493-C

Constitution of India

— Arts. 12, 14 and 16 — Instrumentalities of State (government company) — Non-compliance with constitutional employment scheme — Appointments made in violation of recruitment rules, in face of subsisting recruitment ban and based on other illegalities — Relief — Held, appointments of respondents being illegal, those of them who were in active service may be relieved from their posts — However their cases may be considered for future appointment and the age bar could be relaxed, (2006) 5 SCC 493-D

Service Law

Recruitment process

— Ban on recruitment — Need for strict compliance with — Nullity of appointment made in violation of ban — Ban on recruitment permitting appointment to be made due to exigencies of work, only on approval by certain senior officers — Officers that may accord such approval — Power of such approval, held, cannot be exercised by any officer other than those specifically permitted to do so in terms of the ban order, (2006) 5 SCC 493-E

Service Law

Recruitment process

— Ban on recruitment — Appointment made in violation of ban — Effect — Other workmen if could claim legal right to appointment based thereon — Held, even if some other recruitments have been made illegally, in violation of the ban, respondents cannot claim any legal right on basis thereof, (2006) 5 SCC 493-F

Service Law

Regularisation

— Entitlement to regularisation — Appointment/recruitment on contractual basis — Held, in such a case there is no entitlement to regularisation, (2006) 5 SCC 493-G

Contract Act, 1872

— S. 70 — Applicability — Dismissal from service of illegally appointed persons in public sector company — Direction as to non-recovery of remuneration paid to such employees during period of their (illegal) appointment, keeping in view principle embodied in S. 70, (2006) 5 SCC 493-H