Summary
The Supreme Court rejected a college employee’s claim to regularisation and regular salary after the private college became a constituent college. The record showed that his initial appointment lacked advertisement, selection-panel recommendation and competent authority, and the earlier refusal of regularisation had not been challenged. The conditional staffing-pattern arrangement and long service did not overcome those defects or establish appointment against a sanctioned post.
Issues
- Whether long service and conversion into a constituent college entitled the appellant to regularisation.
- Whether the staffing-pattern arrangement covered an appointment made without the required procedure and sanctioned post.
- Whether Umadevi’s one-time measure assisted the appellant.
Held
- The University’s decision recorded that the initial appointment was without advertisement, selection-panel recommendation or competent authority. Regularisation under the arrangement was conditional on lawful initial procedure and a sanctioned post. The factual premise of the appellant’s claim was therefore unsustainable. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- The appellant had not challenged the order dated 13 August 2003 refusing regularisation. His assertion of lawful recruitment was not borne out by the record. Long continuation alone did not permit regularisation of an appointment contrary to law. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- Umadevi’s limited one-time measure required, among other things, appointment against a duly sanctioned post and qualifying service without protection of court or tribunal orders. The High Court had correctly found that the appellant’s unlawful appointment and litigious continuation did not attract that measure. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; refusal of regularisation upheld.