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

PETITIONER: P. RAVINDRAN & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      The special  leave petitions  arise from  the orders of the Administrative  Tribunal made on February 20, 1996 in OA No.290/95 and  batch.  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  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.      Shri K.M.K.  Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners are postgraduates, M.Phil and Ph.D, and  they  are  highly  qualified  and  have  acquired experience from 1987 as lecturers. When they were appointed, number of  vacancies were  available. Since  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 constitutional  duty to  select suitable candidates by  inviting applications  from the  open market, every  candidate   has   a   fundamental   right   to   seek consideration and  for selection  through open  competition. The petitioners  also have  that right.  At one  time,  they staked their  claims but  were not  selected. Therefore, the process of  recruitment through the Commission, as envisaged 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  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

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

& Ors.  vs. Dr.  Narinder Mohan  & Ors.  [(1994) 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  Government for  exercising the  power  under Article 320  of the  Constitution taking  out the posts from the purview  of the Commission and to regularise 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 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.