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

PETITIONER: E. RAMAKRISHNAN & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/09/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      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 fixed W.P. No.250/92 and the High Court directed the Government to consider their representation and  dispose it  of by judgment dated January 18, 1993.  When they came to this Court, this Court directed the Government  to consider  their cases in the Right of the law laid  down by  this Court  in State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh [(1932) 4 SCC 118]. Subsequently, since the Government had not  taken any steps, the petitioners fixed another writ petition. In  the meanwhile,  the Public  Service Commission [PSC]  had  selected  the  candidates  who  were  not  being appointed. Therefore,  the  selectees  approached  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 writ petitions  filed by  the petitioners  allowed one  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.      It is  bought to  be contended  by Mr.  M.M.  Paikedav, 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  up through  selection  by  PSC recruitment norms.  Necessarily, therefore,  the requisition was sent  for selection  through the PSC and candidates came to be  selected. Under  those circumstances, the candidates, who were  found eligible  and selected  and recommended  for appointment by  the PSC,  were required to be appointed. The

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

Court rightly  had  exercised  the  power  in  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 employees. Obviously, since the decision runs into  the teeth  of statutory requirement under Article 320 of  the Constitution  the  Government  cannot  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 through  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 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 petitioners  have   turned  over-aged   on   the   date   of recruitment, it  would be  for the appropriate Government to relax the  age requirement and the petitioners have to stand in the  queue and  get selection  through the PSC. Thus that they get in only the right to appointment to the post.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.