P. RAVINDRAN AND ORS.versusUNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY AND ORS.

A                         P. RAVINDRAN AND ORS.
                                         v.
           UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY AND ORS.

                               OCTOBER 1, 1996

B              [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

          Service Law :

          Ad-hoc appointment~Lecturers appointed on ad-hoc basis in Union
C Tenitory of Pondicheny-Appeared before Public Service Commission at the
    time of regular recruitment-Not selected-Subsequently they filed petitions
    before Administrative Tribunal claiming regularisation-Tribunal dismissed
    the claim observing that since the posts were required to be filled up by
    recruitment from the open market through Commission, it had no power to
    issue directions to regularise petitioners' services-Held, Tribunal rightly
D   rejected the claim-The Commission having been entrusted with the constitu-
    tional duty to select suitable candidates by inviting applications from open
    market, every candidate has a fundamental right to seek consideration and
    for selection through open competition-Process of recruitment through Com-
    mission, as envisaged under the Constitution, cannot be bypassed by issuing
E   direction for regularisation of services of ad-hoc persons.

         J & K Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors.,
    [1994] SCC (L & S) 723, relied on.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
p   Nos. 20933-36 of 1996.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.96 of the Central
    Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. Nos. 290, 292-93 and 782 of
    1995.

G         K.M.K. Nair for the Petitioners.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Delay condoned.

H         The special leave petitions arise from the orders of the Administra-
                                         158
            P.RAVINDRANv. UNIONTERRITORYOFPONDICHERRY                    159

     tive Tribunal made on February 20, 1996 in QA No. 290/95 and batch. A
     The petitioners were appointed as Lecturers on ad hoc basis and some
     of them had obtained M. Phil, Ph.D. also. When the regular recruitment
     through the Public Service Commission (the "Commission", for short) was
     conducted, the petitioners also appeared before the Commission but they
     were not selected. Subsequently, the petitioners filed petitions for B
     regularisation of their services. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has
     pointed out that since posts are required to be filled up by recruitment
     from the open market through the Commission, the Tribunal has no
     power to issue direction to regularise the services. Thus, these special
     leave petitions.
                                                                               c
            Shri K.M.K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended
     that the petitioners are Post-graduates, M.Phil and Ph.D. and they are
     highly qualified and have acquired experienc_e from 1987 as lecturers.
-\   When they were appointed, number of vacancies were available. Since D
     they have been working since 1987, they require to be regularised by
     suitable directions. We find no force in the contention. The admitted
     position is that the Commission having been entrusted with the constitu-
     tional duty to select suitable candidates by inviting applications from the
     open market, every candidate has a fundamental right to seek considera-
     tion and for selection through open competition. The petitioners also have E
     that right. At one time, they staked their claims but were not selected.
     Therefore, the process of recruitment through the Commission, as en-
     visaged under the Constitution, cannot be bypassed by issuing direction
     for regularisation of the services of the ad hoc persons who had come to
     the service through back-door entry. This Court in catena of decisions F
     has deprecated this practice of regularisation except in extra-ordinary
     cases by directing the Government to frame a scheme and regularise Class
     III and IV services in accordance with the scheme. Even in subsequent
     decisions, that leverage is not being insisted upon. This Court in J & K
     Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors., (1994] G
     SCC (L & S) 723 had held that the Court cannot adopt hybrid process
     of direction to regularise the services bypassing process of selection
     envisaged under the Constitution. This Court has deprecated the Govern-
     ment for exercising the power under Article 320 of the Constitution taking
     out the posts from the purview of the Commission and to regularise H
     160                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

.A   services de hors the Commission. Under those circumstances, we are of
     the view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim to grant the relief
     sought for.

           The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed subject to the
B    benefit of relaxation of age bar till the date of next recruitment so as to
     consider the cases of the petitioners along with open candidates.

     R.P.                                                    Petitions dismissed.