http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  96 of 2007

PETITIONER: Accounts Officer (A&I) APSRTC & Ors

RESPONDENT: K. V. Ramana & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2007

BENCH: S. B. SINHA & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9098 of /2004) [with CA Nos. 97/2007 @ SLP(Civil) No.10348/2004]

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

       Leave granted.

       These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the  Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 30.4.2003 in Writ Appeal No.629 of 2003  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. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

       The facts of the case are that the respondents 1 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.1 and 2 for  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 17.10.1997 directing the corporation to consider the case of these  employees for regularization of service.                  By order dated 31.3.1998 the representation of the writ petitioners 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 a  learned Single Judge of the High Court.

       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 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  regularization.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

       Learned counsel for the writ petitioners (the respondents in this  appeal) relied on the circular of the Corporation dated 26.10.1988 wherein  guidelines were issued to engage the existing contract labour, such as  cleaners including piecemeal rated labour against the sanctioned vacancies.   In view of this circular, it was contended that the writ petitioners were  entitled for regularization.

       The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed  regularization of the writ petitioners within six weeks.  Aggrieved the  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.

       In our opinion these appeals have to be allowed.  It has been held by a  Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors.  vs.   Uma Devi (3) & Ors., 2006(4) SCC1 that absorption, regularization or  permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad  hoc employees dehors the rules and constitutional scheme of public  employment cannot be granted by the Courts.  As regards the circular dated  31.3.1998 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).

       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.