PANKAJ GUPTA AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.

               PANKAJ GUPTA AND ORS. ETC.                                  A
                           v.
          STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.

                        SEPTEMBER 16, 2004
                                                                           B
    [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]

    Service law :

     Appointment-Government jobs-Rural masses-Inadequate
representation of-Discussion in legislative Assembly-Decision by State C
Government-Heads ofdepartments making appointments for Class JV posts
on recommendation of Members of legislative Assembly/Council-No
advertisement/notification issued inviting app{ications for those posts-Effect
of-Held: Appointments were illegal-Neither any criteria approved by
Government nor any rules ofrecruitment foll owed in making appointments- D
Appointees had no right to regularization in service as procedure for their
appointment was erroneous-Directions issued for filling ofposts by regular .
process-Appointees permitted to submit qpplication with relaxation ofupper
age limit.

      Appellants were appointed as Class IV employees with respondent-      E
state. Their appointments were challenged on the ground that there was
no advertisement calling for applications to fill up the vacancies. A
Single Judge of High Court held that the appointments were illegal. On
appeal, Division Bench confirmed same. Hence ~he present appeal.
                                                                            F
     Appellants contended that pursuant to discussion in the Legislative
Assembly regarding lack of proper representation of rural masses as
compared to urban candidates in Government jobs, State Government
made a decision, and their names were recommended by Members of
Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council to heads of various
departments who were competent to appoint them. Hence, their                G
appointments were legal. They contended further that as they have been
working since last several years and crossed maximum age fixed for
entry to Government service, their services may be regularized.

     Disposing of the appeals, the Court                                    H
                                  459
    460                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A        HELD : 1. No person illegally appointed or appointed without
    following the procedure prescribed under the law, is entitled to
    claim that he should be continued in service. In this situation, there
    is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High
    Court. [462-H; 463-A]
B        1.2. There was no publication of a notification inviting applications
    for filling up these posts. The names .of these appellants were
    recommended by the Members of Legislative Council and the Legislative
    Assembly for appointment There is no evidence to show that any criteria
    approved by Government or any rules of recruitment were followed
c   while making these appointments. It may be true that the appellants
    may have been habitants of rural areas and there was no adequate
    representation for this rural population in Government jobs. But the
    Government or the heads of various departments could have formulated
    and resorted to some rational modalities approved under the rules of
    recruitment to see that rural population also got adequate representation
D   in public employment. But same could have been done within
    constitutional limitations. [462-D, E, F]

         2. The appointees have no right for regularization in the' service
    because of the erroneous procedure adopted by the concerned authority
E   in appointing such .persons. [463-A]

          3. It is directed that,

        (i) all the vacant· posts shall be n,otified for appoiittments
    and applications.called for in accordance with the Rules within six
F   months.

         (iiJ all appellants herein ·may be permitted to submit application
    for appointment against such notification.

          (iii) as regards the upper age limit, the appellants shall be given
G   relaxation but there shall not be any relaxation in the matter of the
    basic qualifications for appointments to Class IV posts.

         (iv) the appellants may be allowed to continue in service till such
    regular recruitments are made and these posts are filled up by a regular
H   process of appointments. (463-D, E, F]
           PANKAJ GUPTA v. STATE [BALAKRISHNAN, J.]                       461

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal N.os. 4927-4929                  A
of 2002.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.2000 of the Jammu and
Kashmir High Court in L.P.A. (SW) Nos. 283, 377 and PERLP No. 589 of
2000.
                                                                                  B
                                    WITH

     C.A. No. 4930-32, 4941, 4933-40, 4944, 4943, 4942/2002 and C.A.
Nos. 6079, 6070-6078, 6068, 6069 and 6059-6067 of 2004.

      Raju Ramachandran and D.C. Raina, G. M. Kawoosa, S.S. Jamwal, N.
                                                                                  c
Ganpathy, A. K. Raina for Anil Kr. Jha, Bhim Singh, B.S. Billowria, S. Vig,
Ms. Purnima Bhat, Goodwill Indeevar, Ashok Mathur, C.K. Sasi, P.D.
Sharma, V.N. Raghupathy, C.L. Raina, G.G. Upadhyay and R.D. Upadhyay
for the Appellants.
                                                                                  D
    J.S. Attri, Anis Suhrawardy, C.P. Pandey and Prakash Pandey for the
Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. : Leave granted.                                       E

      The appellants in these civil appeals are Class IV employees in the State
of Jammu and Kashmir. They were all appointed in 1997 and ever since their
appointment, ·they have been working as Orderlies, Process Service, Guards
etc. The appointments of these appellants were challenged by the respondents      F
on various grounds. The respondents alleged that there was no advertisement
calling for applications to fill up the vacancies of Class IV employees and
the names of these appellants were suggested by the Members of the
Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council and the heads of various
departments appointed these appellants based on such recommendations. The
learned Single Judge before whom the various writ petitions came up for           G
consideration held that the appointments of these appellants were illegal and
were not made in a~cordance with law. The appellants herein contended that
on 11.11.1997, there was a government decision made by the State of Jammu
& Kashmir pursuant to a detailed discussion on the floor of the Legislative
Assembly regarding lack of proper representation of rural masses as compared      H
    462                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004j SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   to urban candidates in government jobs. It was probably felt that only persons
    staying in urban areas, who alone could get adequate education, and thereby
    obtained government jobs and it was in these circumstances that vaiious
    Members of Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council made their
    recommendations for appointment of these appellants to Class IV posts.

B         The learned Single Judge, after elaborate discussions on the matter held
    that appointments of these appellants were illegal and they were liable to be
    removed from service. These appellants preferred an appeal and by the
    impugned judgment, the Division Bench confirmed the judgment of the
    Single Judge.
c
          We heard the appellants' counsel and counsel for the respondents. The
    counsel for the- appellants co.ntended that the appointments were made
    pursuant to a government decision and the names .of these appellants were
    recommended by various Members of the Legislative Assembly and the
    Legislative Council. It was argued that the heads of various departments were
D
    competent to make appointments to Class IV posts and, therefore, the
    appointments of these appellants are legal. We are unable to accept this
    contention. Admittedly, these posts were not notified by the government.
    There was no publication of a notification inviting applications for filing up
    these posts. The names of these appellants were recommended by the
E   Members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly for
    appointment. There is no evidence to show that any criteria approved by
    government or any rules of recruitment were followed while making these
    appointments. It may be true that the appellants may have been habitants of
    rural areas and there was no adequate representation for this rural population
    in Govt. jobs. But the government or the heads of various departments could
F
    have formulated and resorted to some rational modalities approved under the
    rules of recru!tment to see that rural population also got adequate representation
    in public employment. But the same could be done withJn the constitutional
    limitations.

G        The appellants' counsel lastly pointed out that all these appellan~ have
    been working since last sev~ral years and many of them have already crossed
    the maximum age fixed for entry to government service, hence they may be
    ~egularised.


          No person illegally appointed or appointed without following the
H
               PANKAJ GUPTA v. STATE [BALAKRISHNAN, J.)                        463

    procedure prescribed under the law, is entitled to claim that he should be         A
    continued in service. In this situation, we see no reason to interfere with the
    impugned order. The appointees have no right for regularisation in the service
    because of the erroneous procedure adopted by the concerned authority in
(
    appointing such persons. Hence, the reliefs are required to be moulded
    especially in view of the fact that the appellants were appointed as early as      B
    in the year 1997 and ever since they have been working as Orderlies. Process
    Servers, Guards, etc. Moreover, the appointments of the appellants were
    made on the basis of the recommendations of the members of the Legislative
    Assembly and Legislative Cpuncil and on the basis of the decision made by
    the State of Jammu & Kashmir pursuant to a detailed discussion on the floor
    of the Legislative Assembly regarding lack of proper representation of rural       C
    masses as compared to urban candidates in government jobs. Hence, we issue
    the following directions : -

          I.   All the vacant posts shall be notified for appointment and
               applications called for in accordance with the Rules within six         D
               months from the date of the receipt of this Judgment.

         2.    All the appellants herein may be permitted to submit application
               for appointment against such notification.

         3.    As regards the upper age limit, these appellants shall be given         E
               relaxation but there shall not be any relaxation in the matter of the
               basic qualifications for appointment to Class IV posts.

         4.    The appellants may be allowed to continue in service sill such
               regular recruitments are made and these posts are filled up by a
               regular process of appointment.                                         F

         All these appeals shall stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
    There shall be no order as to costs.

    v.s.s.                                                   Appeals disposed of.      G