Summary
The Supreme Court rejected regularisation claims by health-department appointees whose appointments the State Committee found illegal and void from inception. Long service did not bring such appointments within the one-time exception for irregular appointments under Umadevi. The affected persons had received notice but failed to establish genuine, lawful appointments. As they were not validly appointed civil servants, a disciplinary inquiry was unnecessary. The State’s appeals succeeded and the employees’ appeals failed.
Issues
- Whether long service entitled illegally appointed employees to regularisation under the Umadevi exception.
- Whether termination of void appointments required disciplinary proceedings.
Held
- The one-time regularisation exception applies to qualifying irregular appointments, not illegal ones. Length of service alone cannot supply lawful appointment or satisfy the requirement of duly sanctioned posts and prescribed qualifications. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
- The State Committee examined the individual cases after notice and found forged appointment letters or surreptitious induction through posting orders. The petitioners failed to establish genuine, lawful appointment, and the Court found no basis to disturb the Committee’s conclusions. (¶ 17)
- Appointments void from inception did not confer civil-servant status. Disciplinary proceedings under Article 311 or disciplinary rules were therefore unnecessary in these circumstances. (¶ 17)
- The employees’ appeals were dismissed; the State’s appeals were allowed and the corresponding writ petitions dismissed. (¶ 18)
Result
Employees’ civil appeals dismissed; State of Bihar’s civil appeals allowed and corresponding writ petitions dismissed. No order as to costs.