2021 (9) TMI 483 - SC - Indian Laws

Regularization of Ad hoc appointments - claim for regularization was mainly rejected on the ground that since her initial appointment was on leave vacancy for which there was no provision under the 2001 Rules, as such she cannot be held to be entitled to the benefit conferred by Regularization Rules, 2001 - HELD THAT - In the case of the appellant, it is undisputed that she was appointed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, who is the prescribed appointing authority under the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1983. Equally undisputed is the fact that she was appointed on a sanctioned post and possessed all the necessary prescribed qualifications under 1983, Rules. Whether her continuation on the post on the strength of the interim order passed by the High Court would disentitle her from regularization in view of the dictum in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VERSUS UMADEVI AND OTHERS 2006 (4) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was held that since the initial appointment of the petitioner (appellant herein) was dehors the Rules and thus was illegal and her appointment was litigious appointment and she continued on the strength of an interim order passed by the High Court on 20.05.1986, she was not entitled for regularization? - HELD THAT - It is very well settled that it is not permissible for the parties to re-open the concluded judgments of the Court as the same may not only tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court but would have far reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice. A feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the Staterespondent to persuade us not to interfere in the matter on the ground that the services of the appellant were terminated vide letter dated 19.05.1986 which was never challenged as such her services stood terminated - We are not ready to accept the proposition canvased by learned counsel for the respondent at this stage for the simple reason that it was open for the State to have advanced this contention before the learned Single Judge in the two Writ Petitions decided vide judgment and order dated 23.01.2006. Once this argument was never made before the learned Single Judge in the proceedings which has attained finality, the respondent cannot be permitted to raise this argument in this appeal. The impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court is not liable to be sustained and is hereby set aside - appellant is held entitled to be regularized with all consequential benefits which may be extended to her within a period of three months from today - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellant's temporary appointment.
2. Applicability of Regularization Rules, 2001 to the appellant.
3. Legality of the appellant's continued employment under interim court orders.
4. Finality and binding nature of previous court judgments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the appellant's temporary appointment:
The appellant was initially appointed as an Assistant Music Teacher on a temporary basis in 1984 to fill a leave vacancy. The terms of her appointment were later modified to end either when the incumbent returned or by a specified date. The appellant challenged this modification in court, and an interim order allowed her to continue until the permanent incumbent returned, which never happened. The court noted that her qualifications met the prescribed requirements, and she continued in her role until 2020 without interruption.

2. Applicability of Regularization Rules, 2001 to the appellant:
The appellant sought regularization under the UP Secondary Education Department Regularization of Ad hoc appointments on the Post of Trained Graduate Teachers Rules, 2001. The High Court initially ruled in her favor, stating she had acquired a right to hold the post due to her continuous satisfactory service. Despite this, the Joint Director of Education rejected her regularization, arguing that her initial appointment on a leave vacancy did not qualify under the 2001 Rules. However, the Supreme Court found that her appointment was irregular, not illegal, and she met the criteria for regularization, having worked for over 10 years in a sanctioned post with the necessary qualifications.

3. Legality of the appellant's continued employment under interim court orders:
The Division Bench of the High Court viewed the appellant's appointment as litigious, continued only due to interim court orders, and thus not enforceable for regularization. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the continuation of her service under interim orders did not disqualify her from regularization, especially since the earlier judgment granting her the right to the post had attained finality and was not challenged.

4. Finality and binding nature of previous court judgments:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's earlier judgment in favor of the appellant, which had become final, crystallized her right to regularization. The Division Bench's attempt to re-evaluate this final judgment was erroneous. The Supreme Court reiterated that judgments which have attained finality cannot be reopened or challenged in collateral proceedings. The appellant's right to regularization, as determined by the earlier court decision, remained binding and enforceable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment, reinstating the appellant's right to regularization with all consequential benefits, to be implemented within three months. The court underscored the importance of respecting final judgments and the principles of res judicata and finality in legal proceedings.