Holding

Regularisation of contract or casual employees cannot be granted by the courts where it violates the constitutional scheme of public employment and selection rules, and a circular cannot override Article 16.

Summary

The respondents were engaged as contract sweepers and attenders by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in 1992 and claimed regularisation after completing 240 days of continuous service, alleging that they were denied work from May 1998. The High Court directed their regularisation, but the Corporation appealed, arguing that the respondents had not been selected through the prescribed Departmental Selection Committee. The Supreme Court, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi, held that regularisation of temporary, contractual or casual employees cannot be granted by courts when it contravenes the constitutional scheme of public employment and that a circular cannot override Article 16 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' orders, dismissed the writ petitions and allowed the appeals. The decision reaffirms that length of service alone does not entitle contract workers to regularisation absent compliance with selection rules.

Issues considered

Whether contract or casual employees can be regularised by judicial order notwithstanding non‑compliance with the prescribed departmental selection procedure.
Whether a corporate circular dated 26‑10‑1988 can override Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the completion of 240 days of continuous service by contract workers creates a right to regularisation.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 16

Subjects

regularisationcontract labourcasual workersArticle 16selection committeepublic employmentSupreme Courtlabour lawAndhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Judgment

ACCOUNTS OFFICER (A & I) APSRTC AND ORS. A
v.
K. V. RAMANA AND ORS.

JANUARY 8, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B
Labour Law:
,...
Contract sweeper and attender-Claiming regularization-Held, even
if contract labours/casual workers/ad hoc employees have worked for a
long period, they cannot be regularized de hors the rules for selection- c
A circular cannot override Article 16 of the Constitution-Constitution of
India-Article 16.

Respondents were engaged as contract sweepers and attenders in the
appellant-State Road Transport Corporation in May/August 1992. They D
filed a writ petition in the High Court stating that though they had
completed 240 days of continuous service without any break, but since
'"(
10.5.1998 they were not given any work. They prayed that the Corporation
be directed to regularize their services. The stand of the Corporation was
that as the respondents were neither selected nor appointed through the
Departmental Selection Committee in accordance with the prescribed E
procedure, their case for regularization could not be considered. The
single Judge directed regularization of the respondents. The appeals of the
Corporation having been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High
Court, it filed the present appeals.
... .., F
Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: In view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in
Uma Devi's* case, absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of
temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees de hors the
rules and constitutional scheme of public employment cannot be granted by G
the Courts. As regards the circular dated 26.10.1988, the same cannot
override Article 16 of the Constitution, and hence regularization cannot be
granted under the said circular. Even ifthe contract labourers or casual
workers or ad hoc employees have worked for a Jong period they cannot
be regularized de hors the rules for selection. [Para 9) [233-G-H, 234-A] H
231
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] I S.C.R

A *Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., (2006)
4 sect, followed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 96 of2007.

From the Judgment and final Order dated 30.4.2003 of the High Court
B of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. No. 629/2003.

WITH

C.A. No. 97 /2007
c •
R. Santhan Krishnan, Praveen K. Pandey and D. Mahesh Babu for the
Appellants.

M/s. P.S.N. & Co.for the Respondents.

D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MARKANDEY KATJU, J. : Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the
E Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 30.4.2003 in Writ Appeal No.629 of2003
and Writ Appeal No.584 of 2003. For the sake of convenience we will deal
with the facts of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.9098/2004.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

F 4. The facts of the case are that the respondents I and 2 in this appeal
were appointed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as "the corporation") as contract sweeper and
attender on 1.5.1992 and respondent no.3 was appointed as such on
1.8.1992. They submitted representations to appellant no. I and 2 for
G regularization of their services claiming that they have completed 240 days
of continuous service without any break but since 10.5.1998 the appellants
were not giving them work. Hence the respondents filed a writ petition
being Writ Petition No.10678 of 1996 which was disposed of by the High
Court on 17.l 0.1997 directing the corporation to consider the case of these
H employees for regularization of service.
ACCOUNTSOFFICER(A&I)APSRTCv. K.V.RAMANA[KATJU,J.] 233

5. By order dated 31.3.1998 the representation of the writ petitioners A
was rejected on the ground that their regularization can only be considered
when they are recruited through the prescribed Departmental Selection
Committee and after undergoing a selection process. Since, they were not
selected and appointed in accordance with the aforesaid procedure, their
case for regularization could not be considered. Aggrieved the respondents
(writ petitioners) filed a writ appeal no.6948 of 1999 which was allowed by
B
a learned Single Judge of the High Court.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation in the writ petition
it was stated that the petitioners were entrusted the work of the attender/
sweeper on casual basis on a consolidated pay, drawn through a pay order C
on certification of the work every month, but they were not issued any
appointment order. It was also submitted that as per the circular of the
Corporation dated 1.5.1996 there was no provision to engage anyone on
contract basis or on consolidated pay. The writ petitioner had not undergone
the Departmental Selection process and as such they were not entitled for D
regularization.
y
..
7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners (the respondents in this
appeal) relied on the circular of the Corporation dated 26. l 0.1988 wherein
guidelines were issued to engage the existing contract labour, such as
cleaners including piecemeal rated labour against the sanctioned vacancies. E
In view of this circular, it was contended that the writ petitioners were
entitled for regularization.

8. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed
.. .,,. regularization of the writ petitioners within six weeks. Aggrieved the F
Corporation filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court
which was rejected by the impugned judgment. Hence, these appeals by
special leave.

9. In our opinion these appeals have to be allowed. It has been held G
by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka &
Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., [2006] 4 SCC 1 that absorption, regularization
or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or
ad hoe employees dehors the rules and constitutional scheme of public
employment cannot be granted by the Courts. As regards the circular dated
H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A 26.10.1988 the same cannot override Article 16 of the Constitution, and
hence regularization cannot be granted under the said circular. Even if the
contract labourers or casual workers or ad hoc employees have worked for
a long period they cannot be regularized dehors the rules for selection, as
has been held in Uma Devi's case (supra).

B 10. Hence following the decision of the Constitution Bench of this
Court in Uma Devi's case (supra), these appeals are allowed and the
impugned judgment of the Division Bench and of the learned Single Judge +
are set aside, and the writ petitions are dismissed. '-

C RP. Appeals allowed.

·ci' '.·' .