Summary
Daily-wage Class-III and Class-IV employees of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, engaged between 1989 and 1992, had challenged the State's refusals to sanction the posts the Commission itself had proposed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in treating the writ petition as a bare plea for regularisation governed by Umadevi instead of adjudicating the challenge to the State's refusals; non-speaking refusals citing only financial constraints, ignoring perennial work and decades of reliance on the same workers, were arbitrary and were quashed. The Court directed creation of supernumerary posts and regularisation of the appellants with effect from 24.04.2002 with arrears.
Issues
- Whether the High Court erred in failing to adjudicate the appellants' principal challenge to the State's refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003 to sanction posts, treating the matter as a mere plea for regularisation.
- Whether the State's refusals to sanction posts on a generic plea of financial constraints, despite the Commission's own proposals and the perennial nature of the work, were arbitrary.
- Whether the decision in Umadevi barred relief to the appellants.
- Whether the 2024 merger of the Commission into a successor body and a later policy of outsourcing Class-IV and driver functions extinguished the appellants' claims.
- What relief should follow having regard to the appellants' long and undisputed service.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14, 16 and 21, Constitution of IndiaFairness in engagement and transparency in administration were held to be obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21, not matters of grace. Where financial constraint is invoked to refuse sanction of posts for perennial work, the record must show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently and how the course chosen aligns with these Articles; long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels offends the promise of equal protection. (¶¶ 17, 18, 20)
Held
- The writ petition expressly assailed the State's refusal to sanction posts and sought a mandamus for their creation. By answering it only on the touchstone of absence of regularisation rules and vacancies, resting principally on Umadevi, the Single Judge and the Division Bench failed to adjudicate the principal challenge; such non-consideration is a misdirection and, in effect, a failure to exercise jurisdiction. The objection that the later refusal of 25.11.2003 was not specifically challenged was a mere technicality, since it was passed on the High Court's own direction and placed on record by the respondents. (¶¶ 7, 14)
- Although creation of posts is primarily an executive function, a refusal to sanction posts is not immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. A non-speaking rejection on a generic plea of financial constraints, ignoring the employer's own 1991 resolution and repeated proposals, the administrative exigencies of a recruiting body, and decades of continuous reliance on daily wagers for regular duties, does not meet the standard of reasonableness expected of a model public institution. Continuing to extract perennial work for decades while pleading want of sanctioned strength cannot be sustained. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The premise that no vacancy existed was contradicted by an RTI response and by an unrebutted application before the Court disclosing vacant Class-IV and driver posts and earlier regularisation of similarly situated daily wagers in the same Commission. Selective regularisation in the same establishment while continuing the appellants on daily wages despite comparable tenure and duties was a clear violation of equity. (¶ 10)
- Reliance on Umadevi was misplaced. Umadevi distinguishes illegal appointments from irregular engagements and does not endorse perpetuation of precarious employment where the work is permanent and the State has failed for years to put its house in order. As held in Jaggo and Shripal, it cannot be deployed as a shield to justify long-term ad hocism, outsourcing as a proxy, or denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. (¶¶ 11, 13)
- A supervening structural change, here the merger of the Commission into the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission, cannot extinguish accrued claims or pending proceedings; the successor steps into the shoes of its predecessor subject to its liabilities. A later policy to outsource Class-IV and driver functions cannot retrospectively validate earlier arbitrary refusals, and interim protection granted by courts neither creates rights nor erases entitlements that may arise on proper adjudication. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The State is a constitutional employer, not a mere market participant, and cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic recurring public functions. Where work recurs year after year, sanctioned strength must reflect that reality; financial stringency is not a talisman overriding fairness and reason. Departments must keep and produce establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements and explain with evidence why precarious engagement is preferred over sanctioned posts. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Because orders in such matters are routinely met with fresh technicalities and administrative drift, relief must take the form of clear duties, fixed timelines and verifiable compliance rather than simpliciter directions; the scheme of supernumerary posts, regularisation, financial benefits and a sworn compliance affidavit is designed to convert rights into outcomes. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; State's refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003 quashed as regards sanction of Class-III and Class-IV posts. All appellants regularised from 24.04.2002 against supernumerary posts to be created, at not less than the minimum of the regular pay scale with increments and seniority from that date; arrears of pay difference from 24.04.2002 payable within three months, with 6% compound interest on default; retired and deceased appellants' terminal dues recalculated and paid within three months; compliance affidavit within four months; no costs.