Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000428-000428 – 2022 |
| Diary Number | 427/2016 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI |
| Precedent Value | Binding on the parties; persuasive authority on administrative discrimination issues |
| Overrules / Affirms | Sets aside High Court judgments dated 14.10.2015 & 30.10.2015; affirms validity of appointments under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 & 45 of the 1976 Rules |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law; administrative service law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Employees were appointed on ad-hoc basis as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks by the Chief Justice under Article 229 rules. A Committee (2012) recommended three categories: some for probation-based regularization, some for rule-based confirmation, others for ineligibility under State cutoff rules. Numerous similarly appointed staff were regularized; the appellants were not, leading to writ petitions and conflicting High Court judgments. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | High Court of Allahabad; all subordinate courts and administrations in India on similarly appointed staff matters |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; administrative authorities considering equality in service regularization |
| Overrules | Division Bench judgments dated 14.10.2015 & 30.10.2015 |
| Distinguishes | Full Bench, Allahabad High Court: 18.09.2013 (In Re: Regularization of Class IV Employees) |
| Follows | Division Bench, Allahabad High Court: 20.09.2011 in Special Appeal No. 563/2008 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that ad-hoc appointments under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 & 45 carry equal status and cannot be selectively excluded from regularization.
- Affirms that arbitrary classification based on appointment-letter stipulations alone breaches Article 14.
- Endorses use of Article 142 SC powers to issue final and complete remedies for administrative discrimination.
- Directs reinstatement and one-year probation-based regularization with all consequential benefits.
- Holds that subsequent cadre amendments or state-rule cutoff dates cannot justify unequal treatment once peers have been regularized.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first confirmed the validity of appointments made by the Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 & 45 of the 1976 Rules.
- It examined the Committee’s 2012 report which split staff into three arbitrary categories for regularization.
- Applying Article 14, the Court found no rational differentia between appellants and peers who were regularized.
- It rejected distinctions based solely on “ad-hoc” labels or exam-condition stipulations, noting the earlier Division Bench had rendered those conditions otiose.
- It held that subsequent rule changes or state-rule cutoff dates could not cure discriminatory treatment.
- Invoking Article 142, the Court exercised inherent power to order reinstatement, regularization after one year, and full consequential benefits.
- The decision sets aside conflicting High Court judgments and provides a complete remedy for inequality in administrative service decisions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants)
- Appointments under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 & 45 are lawful and identical for all similarly appointed staff.
- Differently treating appellants despite peers’ regularization is arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 16, 21.
- Delay in remedy would cause undue hardship; Supreme Court should issue final orders directly.
Respondent (High Court of Allahabad)
- Regularization is a discretionary administrative measure; no automatic right arises from ad-hoc service.
- Granting age relaxation for future selection is an adequate remedy.
- Full Bench judgment of 2013 supersedes earlier Division Bench directions; no further relief is warranted.
Factual Background
Employees were engaged on ad-hoc basis as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 & 45 of the 1976 Rules. A Committee constituted in 2011–12 recommended regularization for some appointees but excluded the present appellants, citing appointment-letter stipulations and state rule cutoff dates. While similarly appointed colleagues were regularized and promoted, the appellants’ representations were rejected, leading to conflicting High Court orders and these appeals.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 8(a)(i), 41 & 45, 1976 Rules: Empower the Chief Justice to appoint Class III staff “in any manner” and exercise residuary powers on recruitment, confirmation and ancillary matters.
- Rule 32 & 33, 1976 Rules: Provide for one-year probation and subsequent confirmation.
- Rule 40(2), 1976 Rules: In absence of High Court rules, Uttar Pradesh government service rules apply for conditions of service.
- U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments Rules, 1979: Set a 30.06.1998 cutoff for regularization of ad-hoc posts outside PSC purview.
- 2019 Amendment: Merged “Routine Grade Clerk” cadre into “Computer Assistant” requiring new qualifications—held inapplicable to cure earlier discrimination.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions