1994 (10) TMI 295 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the exercise of power under proviso to Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution.
2. Regularization of services of temporary appointees and its compliance with the Special Rules.
3. Determination of seniority between PSC candidates and temporary appointees.
4. Application of Rule 10(a)(i)(1) and its implications on seniority.
5. Compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution regarding regularization and seniority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the exercise of power under proviso to Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution:
The Tribunal expressed its unhappiness and held that the exercise of the power under proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution and relaxation of recruitment by PSC is bad. It emphasized that all appointments should be made in accordance with the Special Rules conformable to the zonal regulation made by the President exercising the power under Article 371-D of the Constitution.

2. Regularization of services of temporary appointees and its compliance with the Special Rules:
The government, through G.O. Ms. No. 413 dated August 29, 1983, directed the regularization of services of temporary appointees subject to certain conditions. Condition (iii) specified that the services of temporary employees should be regularized without subjecting them to any tests, written or oral, from the date subsequent to the last regular candidate appointed from the PSC list. The Chief Engineer regularized the temporary services of the appellants with conditions, including that the orders of regularization were provisional and subject to future modifications and that the appellants would not be entitled to seniority based on their initial temporary appointment.

3. Determination of seniority between PSC candidates and temporary appointees:
The Tribunal upheld the G.O. giving seniority to the PSC candidates over the temporary appointees. The Court noted that temporary appointees, appointed under Rule 10(a)(i)(1), were not made on the basis of selection by PSC and, therefore, were not in accordance with the Special Rules. Consequently, they could not be considered members of the service unless appointed in accordance with the Special Rules. The seniority of PSC candidates was determined from the date they started discharging their duties, while temporary appointees' seniority was determined from the date of their regular appointment.

4. Application of Rule 10(a)(i)(1) and its implications on seniority:
Rule 10(a)(i)(1) allows for temporary appointments in the public interest to fill emergent vacancies, but such appointees are not regarded as probationers and do not have any preferential claim to future appointments. Rule 23(a) specifies that the probation of a person first appointed temporarily shall commence from the date of subsequent appointment in accordance with the rules. Rule 33(a) determines seniority based on the date of first appointment to the service, class, or category, but excludes temporary service unless it counts towards probation.

5. Compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution regarding regularization and seniority:
The Court reiterated that appointments must be made in accordance with the rules to avoid violating Articles 14 and 16, which ensure equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The practice of regularizing temporary appointments without following the prescribed rules was criticized as it undermines the constitutional mandate and denies eligible candidates their legitimate right to apply and be selected. The Court upheld the government's direction that PSC candidates should be given seniority over temporary appointees, as the latter were not appointed in accordance with the rules.

In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision that PSC candidates are entitled to seniority over temporary appointees, and the regularization of temporary appointees must comply with the Special Rules and constitutional provisions.