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

PETITIONER: MR. SANTOSH KUMAR VERMA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF  BIHAR  THROUGH  SECRETARY,  DEPARTMENT  OF  URBAN,

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/01/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the  Division  Bench  of  the  Patna  High  Court,  made  on 11.09.1996 in LPA No. 788/95.      The admitted position is that the appellants came to be appointed as  Assistant Engineers  on daily  wages @ Rs.40/- per day on November 16, 1987. Subsequently, they were placed in the pay scale of Rs.880-1510/- per month, They came to be selected by  conducting examinations  and the  appointments, accordingly, came  to be  made. An  attempt was  made by 2nd respondent, Regional Development Authority to regularise the service and  the proposal  was sent  to the  Government  for acceptance.  The   Government  accepting  the  proposal  had referred the  Public service Commission did not agree to the regularisation of  their services, the appellants filed writ petition in  the High  Court for  a mandamus  directing  the authority to  regularise their  services. The  High Court in the impugned  order refused  to give  directions, Thus, this appeal by special leave.      Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for the  appellants, contends that Section 6(3) of the Bihar Regional Development  Authority Act,  1981 (  for short, the ‘Act’  )  gives  power  to  the  Authority  to  appoint  the Secretary and other officers and employees of the Authority. Under proviso  thereto, the  appointing  Authority  has  the power to  appoint any  person for a period not exceeding six months on  any post carrying the minimum salary of Rs. 500/- and above  after approval  of the  State Government  and the appointment though  for six months will be on regular basis. The authority  has not made any statutory rules for the mode of recruitment.  The advertisement  did  not  indicate  that these were temporary appointments. Therefore, the appellants are entitled  to be  regularised in  the service. We find no force in the contention.      Section 6(3)  of the Act only empowers the Authority to appoint the  Secretary, and  other officers and employees of the Authority.  The  power  under  the  proviso  is  only  a breathing  elbow  power  given  to  the  Authority  to  make temporary appointments  so that  the work of the Development

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

Authority goes  on pending  recruitment. Therefore, when the advertisement was made for the recruitment, it was obviously in furtherance  of the  recruitment,  it  was  obviously  in furtherance of  the power  flown under  the  proviso  for  a limited period. Thereby, the appointments obviously are only temporary  appointments   had  sought   assistance  of   the Government for  regularisation which  was negatived  by  the Public Service  Commission. It  is seen that these posts are within  the   purview  of  the  Public  Service  Commission. Therefore, the  Government sought  the  concurrence  of  the Public Service  Commission and the Public Service Commission had not  concurred and,  in our  view,  correctly  with  the request   made    by   the    Government.   Therefore,   any regularisation in violation of the recruitment to be made by the Public  Service Commission  is in  contravention of  the law. The  High Court  therefore, rightly  did not  issue any mandamus  for   regularisation  of   the  services  made  in contravention of  the Rules  to violate  and no  mandamus or direction would be issued to violate law.      The appeal is accrdingly dismissed. No costs.