E. RAMAKRISHNAN AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

                   E. RAMAKRISHNAN AND ORS.                                         A
                               v.
                 THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

                            SEPTEMBER 4, 1996

            [K. RAMASWAMY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]                                    B

      Service Law :

        Regul01isatio11 of ad-hoc employ~es-Candidates selected by Service
Coi11missio11 awaiti11g appoi11tme11t-Directio11 of High Court to give appoi11t-    C
me11t to the selectees a11d fa. 11otify vaca11cies-Held: High Cowt rightly gave
the directio11-Govemme11t could 11ot take a11y decisio11 co11trary to the Co11-
stitutio11 to regularise the service of ca11didates de hors the recrnitment rnles
a11d the statutory process for sele.ctio11 through Public Service Commis-
sion-Co11stitutio11 of /11dia, Art. 320.
                                                                                    D
      State of Haryana v; Piara Singh, (1982) 4 SCC 118, referred to.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 16725 of 1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 24.6.96 of the Kerala High
                                                                                    E
Court in O.P. No. 17422 of 1993.

       Mathai M. Paikeday, C.N. Sree Kumar and Shaju Fraacis for the
Petitioners.
                                                                                    F
      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

       The petitioners were appointed as Field Workers in the Filaria
Department of the State Government between 1981 and 1985. In the first
instance, they had filed W.P. No. 250/92 and the High Court directed the
Government to consider their representation and dispose it of by judgment G
dated January 18, 1993. When they came to this Court, this Court directed
the Government to consider their cases in the light of the law laid down
by this Court in State of Harya11a v. Piara Si11gh, (1982) 4 SCC 118.
Subsequently, since the Government had not taken any steps, the
petitioners filed another writ petition. In the meanwhile, the Public Service H
                                      533
     534                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

:A   Commission (PSC) had selected the candidates who were not being ap-
     pointed. Therefore, the selectees approaches the High Court and filed the
     writ petition. The petitioners also filed the writ petition in the High Court
     seeking for regularisation. The High Court in the impugned order dated
     June 24, 1996 in O.P. No. 17422/93 dismissed the batch of the writ petitions
B    filed by the petitioners, allowed the writ petitions filed by the selectees and
     directed the Government to appoint the candidates selected through the
     PSC. It also directed the Government to send the requisition to the PSC
     to fill up the posts of 30 vacancies from the list of the selected candidates
     prepared by the PSC. Thus this special leave petition.

C           It is sought to be contenctdd by Mr. M.M. Paikeday, learned senior
     counsel for the petitioners that in the light of the law laid down by this
     Court in Piara Singh 's case and in view of the fact that the petitioners have
     been continuing for more than 14 years, they are required to be regularised.
     We find no force in the contention. Admittedly, the posts are to be filled
D    up through selection by PSC recruitment norms. Necessarily, therefore, the
     requisition was sent for selection through the PSC and candidates came to
     be selected. U~der those circumstances, the candidates, who were found
     eligible and selected and recommended for appointment by the PSC, were
     required to be appointed. The Court rightly had exercised the power in.
 E   declining. to regularise the services of the petitioners.

         The learned counsel sought to rely upon an order of the Government
   where the Government had decided to regularise the services of the ad hoc
   employees; Obviously, since the decision runs into the teeth of statutory
   requirement under. Article 320 of the Constitution the Government cannot
 F take any decision contrary to the Constitution to regularise the services of
   the candidates de hors the recruitment rules and the statutory process for
   selection t~rough the PSC. The High Court, therefore, has rightly given
   direction to the Government to notify 30 vacancies and odd or whatever
   may be the vacancies existing .to fill up from amongst the candidates
 G selected by the PSC.

             It is then contended that the petitioners have turned over-aged and,
      therefore, necessary direction may be given to regularise their service by
      filling up the unfilled posts. Even that relief also cannot be granted. If the
 H    petitioners have turned over-aged on the date of recruitment, it would be




              II                                                                       ,,
                             E. RAMAKRISHNAN v. STATE                          535

       for the appropriate Government to relax the age requirement and the A
       petitioners have to stand in the queue and get selection through the PSC..
       Thus what they get is only the right to appointment to the posts.

              The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

       G.N.                                                     Petition dismissed.




...,