Accounts Officer (A & I) APSRTC v. K. V. Ramana and Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: S. B. Sinha
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2007-01-08
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed. Impugned judgments of the High Court and Division Bench set aside; writ petitions dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed. Writ petitions dismissed; impugned judgments set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Accounts Officer (A & I), APSRTC and Ors.

Respondents

K. V. Ramana and Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• R. Santhan Krishnan
• Praveen K. Pandey
• D. Mahesh Babu

Counsels for Respondents

• M/s. P.S.N. & Co.

Case Synopsis & Summary

Respondents were engaged as contract sweepers and attenders with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) from 1 May 1992 (and 1 August 1992 for one). They claimed to have completed 240 days of continuous service without break, but since 10 May 1998 they were not given any work. They sought regularization of their services. The Corporation contended that the petitioners were not selected or appointed through the prescribed Departmental Selection Committee and thus ineligible for regularization; it also argued that the circular dated 26 October 1988 cannot override Article 16 of the Constitution. The writ petitions were initially disposed of by the High Court directing the Corporation to consider regularization, followed by a Single Judge order; the Division Bench dismissed the corporation’s appeals. In allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court held 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. The Court stressed that the 26 October 1988 circular cannot override Article 16 and that even long service cannot regularize outside the prescribed selection process, following Uma Devi’s case. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the writ petitions dismissed, reaffirming strict adherence to the recruitment framework.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 16 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Absorption/regularization cannot be granted by the courts dehors the rules and constitutional scheme of public employment (Uma Devi doctrine).
Regularization cannot be granted De hors the rules for selection.
Circular dated 26.10.1988 cannot override Article 16 of the Constitution.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that contract workers with 240 days of continuous service and long tenure deserve regularization; they relied on the Corporation’s circular of 26 October 1988 guiding the regularization of existing contract labour against sanctioned vacancies and urged that High Court directives to consider regularization should be honored. They argued that Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity and that non‑regularization after long service undermines legitimate expectations; they asserted that regularization must be anchored in proper recruitment rules and not in ad hoc measures.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that regularization cannot occur unless employees are recruited through the prescribed Departmental Selection Committee after undergoing a proper selection process; they asserted that mere long service on contract or casual work cannot give a right to regularization dehors the constitutional scheme; they maintained that the 1988 circular was only a guideline and cannot override Article 16, especially since no appointment orders were issued.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors.	(2006) 4 SCC 1	Positive	The Constitution Bench decision in Uma Devi's case is applied to hold that regularization cannot be granted outside the rules and constitutional framework.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A B .. ,. c D ' "( E F G # ACCOUNTS OFFICER (A & I) APSRTC AND ORS. _v._ K. V. RAMANA AND ORS. JANUARY 8, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] ## _Labour Law:_ _Contract sweeper and attender-Claiming regularization-Held, even if contract labours/casual workers/ad hoc employees have worked for a long period, they cannot be regularized de hors the rules for selectionA circular cannot override Article 16 of the Constitution-Constitution of India-Article 16._ Respondents were engaged as contract sweepers and attenders in the appellant-State Road Transport Corporation in May/August 1992. They filed a writ petition in the High Court stating that though they had completed 240 days of continuous service without any break, but since 10.5.1998 they were not given any work. They prayed that the Corporation be directed to regularize their services. The stand of the Corporation was that as the respondents were neither selected nor appointed through the Departmental Selection Committee in accordance with the prescribed procedure, their case for regularization could not be considered. The single Judge directed regularization of the respondents. The appeals of the Corporation having been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, it filed the present appeals. ... . ., ## Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: In view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Uma Devi's* case, absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees de hors the rules and constitutional scheme of public employment cannot be granted by the Courts. As regards the circular dated 26.10.1988, the same cannot override Article 16 of the Constitution, and hence regularization cannot be granted under the said circular. Even ifthe contract labourers or casual workers or _ad hoc_ employees have worked for a Jong _period they cannot_ be regularized _de hors_ the rules for selection. [Para 9) [233-G-H, 234-A] 231 H 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] I S.C.R A **F** **H** _*Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors._ v. _Uma Devi (3) & Ors.,_ **(2006) 4 sect, followed.** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 96 of2007. **B** From the Judgment and final Order dated 30.4.2003 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. No. 629/2003. WITH ## C.A. No. 97 /2007 c • R. Santhan Krishnan, Praveen K. Pandey and D. Mahesh Babu for the Appellants. M/s. P.S.N. & Co.for the Respondents. **D** The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ## **MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.** : Leave granted. 2. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the E Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 30.4.2003 in Writ Appeal No.629 of2003 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. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. **G** 4. The facts of the case are that the respondents I 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. I 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.l 0.1997 directing the corporation to consider the case of these employees for regularization of service. ACCOUNTSOFFICER(A&I)APSRTCv. K.V.RAMANA[KATJU,J.] 233 5. 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. 6. 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. _C_ **D** y .. . ,,. 7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners (the respondents in this appeal) relied on the circular of the Corporation dated 26. **l** 0.1988 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. 8. 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. 9. 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._ v. _Uma Devi (3)_ & _Ors.,_ [2006] 4 SCC 1 that absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or **ad hoe** employees dehors the rules and constitutional scheme of public employment cannot be granted by the Courts. As regards the circular dated **E** **F** **G** **H** 234 [2007] 1 S.C.R. ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS A 26.10.1988 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). ## B 10. 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. C RP. Appeals allowed. + '- ·ci' '.·' .