Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Siraj Ahmad, was appointed as a Junior Engineer on an adhoc basis on 30.03.1987 by the State of Uttar Pradesh after an advertisement and selection process under the U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 1985. He joined the Agra Development Authority on 08.04.1987 and later obtained a B.Sc. Engineering degree from Aligarh Muslim University on 08.06.1987. Despite being the only Junior Engineer in his authority with a Bachelor's degree, he was not promoted. He made representations and claimed promotion from 18.01.1995, the date on which his juniors were promoted. His claim was rejected on 16.04.2015. He filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed on 11.09.2017. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the appeal. The appellant argued that his services were regularised from 23.11.2002 and, following the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association, his continuous service from initial appointment should be considered for promotion. He also relied on a High Court decision in Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi's case where similar relief was granted. The State contended that the appellant's appointment was illegal because it was made without the concurrence of the U.P. Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court examined the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments, citing State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari. It held that since the appellant possessed the prescribed qualifications, was selected through open competition, and worked against sanctioned posts, his appointment was irregular, not illegal. The Court further held that the appellant was entitled to promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, i.e., 18.01.1995, with consequential benefits. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to grant promotion and consequential benefits within three months.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Irregular vs Illegal Appointment - Distinction between irregular and illegal appointment - U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 1985 - The appellant was appointed after advertisement and selection process but without concurrence of U.P. Public Service Commission. The Court held that since the appellant possessed requisite qualifications, was selected through open competition, and worked against sanctioned posts, the appointment was irregular, not illegal. (Paras 11-16) B) Service Law - Promotion - Eligibility from date of initial appointment - U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 1985, Rule 24(3) - The appellant's services were regularised in 2002. Relying on Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that continuous officiation from initial appointment must be considered for promotion. The appellant was entitled to promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, i.e., 18.01.1995, with consequential benefits. (Paras 6, 17-18) C) Service Law - Regularisation - Conditions for regularisation - The Court in M.L. Kesari held that if an employee worked for 10 years or more in a sanctioned post without court orders, and the appointment was irregular (not illegal), regularisation may be considered. The appellant satisfied these conditions. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's initial appointment, made without concurrence of U.P. Public Service Commission, is illegal or irregular, and whether he is entitled to promotion from the date his juniors were promoted.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 11.09.2017 is set aside. The respondents are directed to grant promotion to the appellant to the post of Assistant Engineer from the date his juniors were promoted, i.e., 18.01.1995, with all consequential benefits, within three months from the date of this order.
Law Points
- Distinction between irregular and illegal appointment
- Regularisation of service
- Promotion eligibility from date of initial appointment
- Continuous officiation for seniority
- Concurrence of Public Service Commission
