9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the appointment of a respondent by the Union of India in the Census Organisation, the relaxation of upper age limit for retrenched census employees, the entitlement of employees to recruitment based on circular letters, the regularization of services, termination of services, contempt proceedings, compliance with policy and circulars, discrimination in appointment, constitutional provisions of equality in public employment, and the legality of policy decisions for absorption of employees. Appointment and Age Relaxation: The respondent was appointed by the Union of India in the Census Organisation on a temporary basis, with appointments made as per exigencies of work. A circular letter issued by the State of Orissa relaxed the upper age limit for 147 retrenched census employees, allowing age relaxation equal to the period of service rendered prior to retrenchment. Entitlement to Recruitment: The Orissa Administrative Tribunal directed the State Government to consider the case of retrenched employees for permanent absorption against vacancies of junior clerks, emphasizing the duty of the government to comply with its policy and circulars for appointment of retrenched employees. Regularization and Termination of Services: The respondent's services were terminated despite interim orders, leading to contempt proceedings and subsequent directions for temporary appointment. The High Court observed that the State Government should comply with its policy and circulars for appointing retrenched employees, leading to a direction for permanent absorption within a specified timeframe. Legal Arguments and Constitutional Provisions: The appellant contended that the circular letters did not constitute a policy decision for regularization, emphasizing the need for compliance with recruitment rules. The respondent argued that the State's policy decision warranted the appointment of retrenched employees without discrimination, highlighting the constitutional obligation of equal treatment in public employment. Judicial Interpretation and Conclusion: The Supreme Court emphasized that a policy decision cannot override statutory rules or constitutional provisions, citing precedents that appointments made in violation of the law are null and void. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, stating that illegality cannot be perpetuated, and equality cannot exist in illegality. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
