Summary
The Supreme Court upheld cancellation of a daily wager’s regularisation obtained through interpolation of his name in the recommended list despite lacking the required three years’ continuous service. He received notice, a personal hearing and an opportunity to prove eligibility, but produced no supporting evidence. The invalid regular appointment did not confer the protections of a lawful regular employee or require a disciplinary inquiry before annulment. The High Court’s contrary reinstatement-related directions were displaced.
Issues
- Whether regularisation secured without the prescribed service and through an interpolated list was valid.
- Whether annulment required the disciplinary procedure applicable to lawful regular employees.
Held
- The worker did not satisfy the minimum continuous-service condition and failed to prove eligibility despite a full opportunity. The original recommendation list omitted his name; its later interpolation and the inquiry into responsible officials supported the invalidity of regularisation. (¶¶ 5.1–5.4, 8–9)
- Regularisation obtained by fraud or misrepresentation cannot be sustained. An unlawful initial regular appointment does not become a valid foundation for claiming the benefits attached to regular employment. (¶¶ 5.5, 6.1–6.2)
- The disciplinary-inquiry protections invoked by the High Court were inapplicable to this void regular appointment. The worker had received notice and a personal hearing, and annulment of the invalid appointment was justified on these facts. (¶ 6–9)
Result
Authority’s appeal allowed and High Court Division Bench order set aside. Termination of 22 May 2003 upheld. Worker permitted to withdraw the Rs 25,000 litigation costs deposited under the Supreme Court’s interim order; pending applications disposed of.