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

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SURINDER KUMAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Order  dated   2.8.1996  is   recalled.  Special  Leave Petitions are restored.      Leave granted.  These appeals  by special  leave  arise from the  judgment of  the Division  Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High  Court, dated  November 23,  1995 and  July 28, 1995 in C.W.P. Nos. 15828/95  and 1479/95 respectively.      The admitted  position is  that the respondents came to be appointed  as daily  wagers on contract basis to the post of Clerk.  They filed  writ petition  in the  High Court for their regularisation.  The High  Court in the impugned order has directed  payment of wages on the principle of equal pay for equal  work and  also regularisation  of their services. Thus these appeals, by special leave.      The controversy  is no  longer res judicata. This Court in State  of Haryana  v. Piara  Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] has laid down  the guidelines for appointment by recruitment and if need  be by  regularisation of  class IV  employees. As a consequence, any appointment made to the service shall be in accordance with  the statutory rules and also the guidelines laid down  thereunder. Therefore,  the appellant is directed to  consider   their  cases   in  accordance  with  law  and guidelines  laid   down  therein   for  appointment  of  the respondents to  the service  as per  law provided  they  are otherwise eligible.  If they have become age-barred, age may be relaxed  for the period they have worked. On appointment, from that  date they  will be  entitled to  equal pay on par with the regular clerks.      Shri Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the respondents, contends  that   the  post   held  by  the  respondents  are interchangeable and  in fact  they have been interchanged to enable them  to hold  the posts.  That contention  cannot be given acceptance  for the  reason that since the respondents were appointed on contract basis on daily wages, they cannot have any  right to  a post  as  such  until  they  are  duly selected and  appointed. Merely  because they  are  able  to manage to  have the  posts interchange,  they cannot  become entitled to  the same pay-scale which the regular clerks are holding by  claiming that  they are discharging their duties as regular  employees. The  very object  of selection  is to

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

test  the   eligibility  and   then  to  make  selection  in accordance with  rules prescribed for recruitment. Obviously the respondents  recruitment was not made in accordance with the rules.  This Court  has also  pointed out  in  State  of Haryana &  Ors. v. Jasmer Singh & Ors. [JT 1996 (10) SC 876] in that  behalf. If  any illegal  actions have been taken by the officer after recruitment, it would be a grave matter of indiscipline by  the officers and the higher authorities are directed to  look into  the matter and see that such actions are rectified, but that would not be a matter for this Court to give  legitimacy to illegal acts done by the officers and to grant  relief on the basis of wrong or illegal actions of superior officers. The appropriate authority would look into and take  suitable disciplinary  action against  the  erring officers and  submit the  report of the action taken and the result thereof to the Registry of this Court.      The appeals  are accordingly  allowed and the orders of the High  Court set  aside, but the directions that would be followed are as indicated in the judgment. It is needless to mention that they would take expeditious action in following the directions. No costs.