Holding

The exemption under G.O. No.27 M.A. (Q) pertains only to sponsorship by the Employment Exchange and does not waive the statutory selection process; therefore, the respondent’s appointment was lawfully denied.

Summary

The respondent, a casual Balwadi teacher employed by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, sought regular appointment after the State issued G.O. No.27 M.A. (Q) exempting voluntary workers from the employment‑exchange sponsorship requirement. The corporation required candidates to clear a written test, typing test and interview; the respondent attended only the interview and had been absent without leave from her duties since April 1989. Her services were terminated for unauthorized absence and she filed a writ petition. The High Court directed the corporation to consider her for regular appointment under the G.O., but the Supreme Court held that the order only waived the sponsorship requirement, not the statutory selection process, and that the State cannot dispense with constitutional provisions of Articles 14 and 16. Consequently, the respondent had no legal right to appointment, and the High Court’s direction was set aside. The appeal by the corporation was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the exemption granted by G.O. No.27 M.A. (Q) applies to the respondent’s case for regular appointment.
Whether the State can exempt compliance with statutory selection procedures and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the respondent, having failed to appear for the required written and typing tests and having unauthorized absence, is entitled to regular appointment.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 14, s. Article 16

Subjects

public employmentconstitutional lawArticles 14 and 16appointment exemptionemployment exchangecasual workersselection proceduretermination of serviceswrit petition

Judgment

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 629

" ~ COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION A
HYDERABAD AND OTHERS
v.
P. MARY MANORANJANI AND ANOTHER
(C.A. No. 341 of 2008)
JANUARY 11, 2008 B

-t [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

~ Service Law - Appointment by absorption of casual
workers - For the purpose of appointment exemption granted c
from sponsorship of the names of candidates from
Employment. Exchange - Employer-Corporation requiring
written test, typing test and interview for recruitment -
Candidate-casual worker not appearing in written and typing
test, but appearing in interview - Candidate seeking regular
D
appointment - Termination of her services as a casual worker
~ on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty -
Termination challenged - High Court directing her
appointment - On appeal, held: Appointment rightly denied
to the candidate - She did not have any legal right to be
appointed - The Government order granted exemption only E
~
..
from sponsorship of the names by the Employment Exchange
and not from the recruitment procedure -A public employment

~ in derogation of constitutional scheme provided u/arts. 14 and
16 of the Constitution and statutory requirements is not
i permissible - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 12, 14 and F
,.
16- GO. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated 16.1.1991.
Respondent No. 1 had joined the services of the
appellant-corporation as a Balwad: teacher (casual

L worker). The Corporation requested the State to grant
exemption to the casual workers from requirement of
sponsorship of the candidates by the Employment
Exchange for appointment in the regular post. The
G

exemption was granted by G.O. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated
16.2.1991 .. The respondent, for the purpose of selection
629 .H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A in a regular post, was required to appear for interview and
written test. She appeared for interview, but did not appear
in written test and typing test. Thereafter a letter was
received by the Corporation from Welfare Association
requesting the Corporation that the services of the
B respondent be terminated since she had unauthorisedly
remained absent for long time as a casual worker.
Thereafter, respondent requested the Corporation
seeking her absorption as a typist. Corporation
terminated her services in view of the unexplained
c absence. Respondent filed writ petition, challenging the
order of termination. Single Judge of High Court allowed
the same on the ground that once the name of the
candidate appeared in the list of candidates in terms of
the G.O., appointment to her could not have been denied
in view of G.O. Ms No. 27, on the ground that on the date
0
of interview she was not in actual service. Appeal of the
Corporation was dismissed by Division Bench of High
Court. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
E HELD: 1. Constitutional scheme in regard to public
employment as enumerated in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India is explicit. Any appointment made
by a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India must be subject to the constitutional
F scheme. In making appointments the State is obligated t
to comply with the same as also statutory requirements,
if any. Neither the appellant nor the State could grant any
exemption in regard to compliance of the statutory
requirements. [Para 13] (635-F, G, H; 636-A]
G
2. The G.O. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated 16.1.1991
granted only exemption from sponsorship of the names
by the Employment Exchange. Appellant did not and in
fact could not ask for grant of any exemption from its
H obligation to comply with the requirements of Articles 14
COMMNR .. MUNICIPAL CORPN. HYDERABAD & ORS. 631
v. P. MARY MANORANJANI & ANR. [S.8. SINHA, J.]
~
"'
and 16 of the Constitution of India or other Statutory Rules A
operating in the field in this behalf. It is now a well settled
principle of law that any appointment made in violation of
the statute or the constitutional provision wo•Jld be illegal.
[Para 14) [636-A, B)
Secretary State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi (3) 8
--t and Ors. 2006 (4) sec 1 - relied on.
' 3. The G.O. is not at all applicable in a case of this

• nature, where a candidate not only did not appear at the
written test for the purpose of recruitment to the regular
post but also failed to attend to her duties for a number of
c
years. Respondent was engaged for a particular purpose,
namely - to impart education to the poor· children. She
failed to carry out her contractual obligations. Only when
she came to learn of the fact that a complaint had been
D
-../ made against her, she requested either for her recruitment
as a typist or grant her leave on medical ground, which
ex-facie appears to be mala fide. She did not have any
legal right to continue in the said post. The direction of
the High Court to consider her case in the light of the G.O.
is unsustainable. [Paras 15, 16 and 17) [636-C, D, E, F] E

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 341

l i
of 2008.
From the final Order dated 4.11.2004 of the High Court of
4 Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. No. 1714 of 2004. F

L.N. Rao, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapaneni,
Siddharth Patnaik and G. Arun for the Appellants.
~ . Anil Kumar Tandale for the Respondent.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
' --+
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Respondent No.1 joined the services of Appellant-
· Corporation as Balwadi Teacher on an honorarium of Rs.100/-
H
per month.
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

+.. "
A 3. The Corporation requested the State of Andhra Pradesh
to grant exemption in regard to requirements of sponsorship of
the candidates by the Employment Exchange for appointment
in the regular posts, pursuant whereto G.O. Ms. No.27 M.A. (Q)
dated 161h January, 1991 was issued, stating :-
B 'The Comm'issioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad
in his letter 2nd read above has stated that the Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad· has been implementing the
Urban Community Development Programme since 1967
that under this programme a number of Balwadi and
c Sewing Centres were opened in the slum areas for the
benefit of the slum Woman and Children and a grant of
Rs.250/- p.m. was paid by the Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad to the Balwadi Teachers and that there is a
long standing demand from these persons for absorption \--
D into posts with a regular scale of pay as most of them are
working as Teachers from 10 to 15 years. Therefore, the )..

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has
requested the Government to exempt the voluntary workers
from the Employment Exchange Procedure so that they
E may be considered for appointment in the existing and
future vacancies of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad
as Lower Division Clerks, Lower Division Typists, Bill
Collectors, Record Assistants or any other posts for which
they are eligible.
t
F 2. The Government having carefully examined the proposal
of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad
•
hereby accord exempting 214 voluntary workers listed in
the annexure to this order from Employment Exchange
procedure so that they may be considered for appointment
G as LDCs, L.D. Typists, Bill Collectors, Record Assistants
or any other posts for which they are eligible in the existing ~

and future vacancies.
3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action
H
COMMNR., MUNICIPAL CORPN. HYDERABAD & ORS. 633
v. P. MARY MANORANJANI & ANR. [S.S. SINHA, J.]
. ... accordingly." A
4. The said order clearly postulates that what was
exempted was requirement of sponsorship of the candidates
by the Employment Exchange and not the selection process
itself.
8
5. Appellant is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution of India. It was, therefore, obligated to undertake
the selection process in terms of the constitutional scheme
~ ""' envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
6. Respondent, for the purpose of her selection in a regular c
post created by the appellant-Corporation, was thus, required
to appear for a vive voce before a Selection Committee as also
a written test. She appeared in the interview on 24th December,
1991. She, however, did not appear in the written test. From
April, 1989 she absented herself from her duties. As she had D
unauthorisedly remained absent continuously for long time, a
~ letter dated 2nd June, 1992 was received by the Corporation
from Jai Prakash Nagar Welfare Association requesting the
Corporation to terminate her services.
7. Having come to learn thereabout the respondent made E
a request before the appellant on 12th February, 1993 that she
be provided with a job of typist stating:-
"I am to state here that I passed Higher Typewriting in
English and S.S.C. passed I have attend the interview on F
1'
A
26.12.91, by (but) could not attend written test and
Typewriting exam as I am late and there was a
communication gap.
I request you sir kindly to appoint me a typist as I am
l' fully qualified to hold the post. My colleagues have already G
I been appointed. If I am provided with the job, I shall ever
I --t remain grateful."
8. It, therefore, stands admitted that she had not appeared
at the written test as also typewriting examination. She also
H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A having realized that she had been absenting from her duties ~ p

continuously, purported to file some medical certificates for
treating her to be on leave from 1st May, 1989 to 19th February,
1993. Appellant by its letter dated 10th March, 1993 asked her
to produce copies of the representations made by her during
B the period of·her absence as also the acknowledgement receipts
thereto to examine her case. The period of absence having not
satisfactorily been explained by the respondent, her services
were terminated by an order dated 24th July, 1998 stating :- ...
"13. The request of Smt. Mary Manoranjani has been
c examined with reference to the records available and it is
clearly established that she had absented from duty w.e.f.
April, 1989 onwards for reasons best known to her. There
is nothing on record to show that she has either submitted
any leave application or any medical certificate during the
D period of her absence, until she again submitted
application on 20.02.1993 requesting for permission to
join today. The Balwadi/Sewing teachers have been ~ ,_
appointed by the respective welfare associations located
in slums and they were not appointed by MCH. Smt. Mary
E Manoranjani has already been communicated that her
request for rejoining into duty is rejected vide this office
letter 7th cited. Smt. Mary Manoranjani has not put forth
any new grounds to reconsider her case."

9. Aggrieved thereby she filed a writ petition before the
F High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh in August, 1998. t
By a judgment and order dated gth March, 2004 a learned Single •
Judge of the High Court, without entering into the merit of the
matter, allowed the said petition stating :-
"Admittedly, the Government has issued G.O.Ms. No.27
G
on 16.1.1991 and as per the contents of the said G.O.
voluntarily workers working in the Municipal Corporation +--
of Hyderabad should be absorbed in regular vacancies
by relaxing the rules relating to employment exchange etc.,
and from the papers produced by the learned counsel for
H
COMMNR., MUNICIPAL CORPN. HYDERABAD & ORS. 635
v. P. MARY MANORANJANI & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
, ~
the petitioner, it is clear that a list of casual workers was A
prepared and the petitioner is placed at serial No.100.
When once the petitioner is in the list of candidates and
the purpose of G.O.Ms. No.27 is to give relaxation of the
existing rules and for absorption of those who are working
as casual workers as on the date of the G.O., it cannot be B
said that the petitioner's case cannot be considered simply
on the ground that as on the date of interview she was not
in actual service. Hence, I deem fit to direct the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment as Lower Division Typist or in any other c
equivalent post in terms of G.O.Ms. No.27 dated
16.1.1991."
10. An intra court appeal preferred by the appellant
thereagainst has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the
said High Court by reason of the impugned judgment. D
11. Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants, submitted that the impugned orders of
the High Court are ex facie illegal as in a case of this nature the
aforesaid G.O.Ms. cannot be said to have any application
whatsoever. E

12. Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that
keeping in view the tenor of the order passed by the learned
., Single Judge which has been affirmed by the Division Bench, F
• as a mere direction for consideration of the case of the
respondent in terms of the said G.O.M. has been made, no
interference therewith by this Court is warranted.
13. Constitutional scheme in regard to public employment
as enumerated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India G
is explicit. Any appointment made by a 'State' within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India must be subject to the
constitutional scheme. In making appointments the State is
obligated fo comply with the same as also statutory
requirements, if any. Neither the appellant nor the State could H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A grant any exemption in regard to compliance of the statutory
;... .
requirements.
14. The G.O.M. granted only exemption from sponsorship
of the names by the Employment Exchange. Appellant did not
and in fact could not ask for grant of any exemption from its
B obligation to comply with the requirements of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India or other Statutory Rules operating
in the field in this behalf. It is now a well settled principle of law ... ,..
that any appointment made in violation of the statute or the
constitutional provision would be illegal. (See - Secretary State
c of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi (3) and others :(2006)
4 sec 1.
15. G.O. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated 15th January, 1991, I-

therefore, is not at all applicable in a case of this nature, where
a candidate not only did not appear at the written test for the
D
purpose of recruitment to the regular post but also failed to
attend to her duties for a number of years. Respondent was ~

engaged for a particular purpose, namely- to impart education
to the poor children. She failed to carry out her contractual
obligations.
E
16. Only when she came to learn of the fact that a complaint
had ceen made against her, she raquested either for her
recruitment as a typist or grant her leave on medical ground,
which ex-facie appears to be mala fide. I

F t
17. We, therefore, are of the opinion that she did not have
any legal right to continue in the said post. The airection of the
..
High Court to consider her case in the light of G.0.Ms. No. 27
M.A. (Q) dated 15th January, 1991 is eminently unsustainable
as the said government order would have no application to the
G facts and circumstances of the case.
..,....
18. For the reasons abovementioned the impugned t-
judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. The
appeal is allowed. However, there shan ::le no order as to costs.
H K.K.T. Appeal allowed.