Allowed¶135

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Hyderabad and Others v. P. Mary Manoranjani and Another

Service Law – Absorption of casual workers

Supreme Court11 Jan 20082008 INSC 45 · [2008] 1 S.C.R. 6292008 INSC 45

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Casual worker absorption; Balwadi teacher; Employment Exchange exemption; G.O. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated 16.1.1991; Articles 12, 14 and 16 Constitution of India; constitutional scheme of public employment; written test and typing test; unauthorised absence from duty; termination of casual worker; writ petition and writ appeal (W.A. No. 1714 of 2004); Lower Division Typist appointment; Uma Devi (3) relied on; Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad; no legal right to appointment.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside; no order as to costs. ¶135

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Hyderabad and Others versus P. Mary Manoranjani and Another — Supreme Court (2008) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside; no order as to costs.

¶135

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent, a casual Balwadi Teacher who did not appear in the written test and typing test and remained absent from duty from April, 1989, had any legal right to appointment/absorption or to continue in the post under G.O. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q). +2 more

¶132

Court's answer

The G.O. was not at all applicable to the respondent's case: she neither appeared at the written test for recruitment to the regular post nor attended to her duties for a number of years, failing her contractual obligations; her belated request for recruitment as typist or leave on medical ground was ex facie mala fide.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The constitutional scheme in regard to public employment under Articles 14 and 16 is explicit; any appointment made by a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 must be subject to that scheme and to statutory requirements, and neither the employer nor the State could grant any exemption from compliance with them.

¶26

Key takeaways

G.O. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) granted only exemption from sponsorship of names by the Employment Exchange, not from the obligation to comply with Articles 14 and 16 or other statutory rules operating in the field.ratio¶125
It is well settled that any appointment made in violation of the statute or a constitutional provision would be illegal; for this proposition the Court relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3).ratio¶125
The respondent did not have any legal right to continue in the said post.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law - Absorption of casual workers - Exemption from Employment Exchange sponsorship under G.O. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) does not exempt the recruitment procedure itself. A casual Balwadi Teacher who appeared for interview but skipped the written and typing tests, and remained absent from duty from April, 1989, had no legal right to appointment or to continue in the post. Public employment under Articles 14 and 16 must conform to the constitutional scheme; a 'State' under Article 12 cannot grant, nor benefit from, exemption from statutory/constitutional requirements - any appointment in violation thereof is illegal (relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3)). The High Court's direction to consider her case under the G.O. was unsustainable and was set aside; appeal allowed, no order as to costs.

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 629

COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION A HYDERABAD AND OTHERS

¶7

¶8

P. MARY MANORANJANI AND ANOTHER

¶9

(C.A. No. 341 of 2008)

JANUARY 11, 2008

-t

~ .. ~

[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

¶17

Service Law - Appointment by absorption of casual workers - For the purpose of appointment exemption granted c from sponsorship of the names of candidates from Employment. Exchange - Employer-Corporation requiring written test, typing test and interview for recruitment - Candidate-casual worker not appearing in written and typing test, but appearing in interview - Candidate seeking regular D appointment - Termination of her services as a casual worker on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty - Termination challenged - High Court directing her appointment - On appeal, held: Appointment rightly denied to the candidate - She did not have any legal right to be E appointed - The Government order granted exemption only from sponsorship of the names by the Employment Exchange and not from the recruitment procedure -A public employment in derogation of constitutional scheme provided u/arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and statutory requirements is not permissible - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 12, 14 and^F 16- GO. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated 16.1.1991.

¶18

Respondent No. 1 had joined the services of the appellant-corporation as a Balwad: teacher (casual worker). The Corporation requested the State to grant G exemption to the casual workers from requirement of sponsorship of the candidates by the Employment Exchange for appointment in the regular post. The exemption was granted by G.O. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated 16.2.1991 .. The respondent, for the purpose of selection .H 629

¶19

¶20

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶21

[2008] 1 S.C.R.

¶22

630

¶23

A in a regular post, was required to appear for interview and written test. She appeared for interview, but did not appear in written test and typing test. Thereafter a letter was received by the Corporation from Welfare Association requesting the Corporation that the services of the B respondent be terminated since she had unauthorisedly remained absent for long time as a casual worker. Thereafter, respondent requested the Corporation seeking her absorption as a typist. Corporation terminated her services in view of the unexplained c absence. Respondent filed writ petition, challenging the order of termination. Single Judge of High Court allowed the same on the ground that once the name of the candidate appeared in the list of candidates in terms of the G.O., appointment to her could not have been denied 0^{in view of G.O.MsNo.27,onthe ground that onthe date} of interview she was not in actual service. Appeal of the Corporation was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present appeal.

¶24

Allowing the appeal, the Court

¶25

¶26

HELD: 1. Constitutional scheme in regard to public employment as enumerated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is explicit. Any appointment made by a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India must be subject to the constitutional F scheme. In making appointments the State is obligated to comply with the same as also statutory requirements, if any. Neither the appellant nor the State could grant any exemption in regard to compliance of the statutory requirements. [Para 13] (635-F, G, H; 636-A]

¶27

¶28

The G.O. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated 16.1.1991 granted only exemption from sponsorship of the names by the Employment Exchange. Appellant did not and in fact could not ask for grant of any exemption from its H obligation to comply with the requirements of Articles 14

"' ~

i 4

COMMNR .. MUNICIPAL CORPN. HYDERABAD & ORS. 631 v. P. MARY MANORANJANI & ANR. [S.8. SINHA, J.]

¶34

and 16 of the Constitution of India or other Statutory Rules A operating in the field in this behalf. It is now a well settled principle of law that any appointment made in violation of the statute or the constitutional provision wo•Jld be illegal. [Para 14) [636-A, B)

--t

•

-../

Secretary State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. 2006 (4) sec 1 - relied on.

¶41

The G.O. is not at all applicable in a case of this nature, where a candidate not only did not appear at the written test for the purpose of recruitment to the regular c post but also failed to attend to her duties for a number of years. Respondent was engaged for a particular purpose, namely - to impart education to the poor· children. She failed to carry out her contractual obligations. Only when she came to learn of the fact that a complaint had been D made against her, she requested either for her recruitment as a typist or grant her leave on medical ground, which ex-facie appears to be mala fide. She did not have any legal right to continue in the said post. The direction of the High Court to consider her case in the light of the G.O. E is unsustainable. [Paras 15, 16 and 17) [636-C, D, E, F]

¶42

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2008.

¶43

From the final Order dated 4.11.2004 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. No. 1714 of 2004.

¶44

¶45

L.N. Rao, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Siddharth Patnaik and G. Arun for the Appellants.

¶46

~ .

¶47

Anil Kumar Tandale for the Respondent.

¶48

¶49

--+

¶50

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶51

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

¶52

Respondent No.1 joined the services of Appellant· Corporation as Balwadi Teacher on an honorarium of Rs.100/per month.

¶53

¶54

[2008] 1 S.C.R.

¶55

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶56

632

¶57

+.. "

¶58

¶59

•

¶60

The Corporation requested the State of Andhra Pradesh to grant exemption in regard to requirements of sponsorship of the candidates by the Employment Exchange for appointment in the regular posts, pursuant whereto G.O. Ms. No.27 M.A. (Q) dated 16¹ h January, 1991 was issued, stating :-

¶61

¶62

¶63

'The Comm'issioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in his letter 2nd read above has stated that the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad· has been implementing the Urban Community Development Programme since 1967 that under this programme a number of Balwadi and c Sewing Centres were opened in the slum areas for the benefit of the slum Woman and Children and a grant of Rs.250/- p.m. was paid by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to the Balwadi Teachers and that there is a long standing demand from these persons for absorption D into posts with a regular scale of pay as most of them are working as Teachers from 10 to 15 years. Therefore, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has requested the Government to exempt the voluntary workers from the Employment Exchange Procedure so that they E may be considered for appointment in the existing and future vacancies of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad as Lower Division Clerks, Lower Division Typists, Bill Collectors, Record Assistants or any other posts for which they are eligible.

The Government having carefully examined the proposal of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad hereby accord exempting 214 voluntary workers listed in the annexure to this order from Employment Exchange procedure so that they may be considered for appointment as LDCs, L.D. Typists, Bill Collectors, Record Assistants or any other posts for which they are eligible in the existing and future vacancies.

)..

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action

633

.. ...

1 ' A

l ' I I --t

COMMNR., MUNICIPAL CORPN. HYDERABAD & ORS. v. P. MARY MANORANJANI & ANR. [S.S. SINHA, J.]

¶79

accordingly."

¶80

¶81

The said order clearly postulates that what was exempted was requirement of sponsorship of the candidates by the Employment Exchange and not the selection process itself.

~ ""'

Appellant is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was, therefore, obligated to undertake the selection process in terms of the constitutional scheme envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶86

Respondent, for the purpose of her selection in a regular^c post created by the appellant-Corporation, was thus, required to appear for a vive voce before a Selection Committee as also a written test. She appeared in the interview on 24th December, 1991. She, however, did not appear in the written test. From April, 1989 she absented herself from her duties. As she had D unauthorisedly remained absent continuously for long time, a letter dated 2nd June, 1992 was received by the Corporation from Jai Prakash Nagar Welfare Association requesting the Corporation to terminate her services.

¶87

Having come to learn thereabout the respondent made^E a request before the appellant on 12th February, 1993 that she be provided with a job of typist stating:-

¶88

"I am to state here that I passed Higher Typewriting in English and S.S.C. passed I have attend the interview on 26.12.91, by (but) could not attend written test and Typewriting exam as I am late and there was a communication gap.

¶89

¶90

I request you sir kindly to appoint me a typist as I am fully qualified to hold the post. My colleagues have already^G been appointed. If I am provided with the job, I shall ever remain grateful."

¶91

It, therefore, stands admitted that she had not appeared at the written test as also typewriting examination. She also H

¶92

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 1 S.C.R.

634

~ p

~ ,_

¶97

A having realized that she had been absenting from her duties continuously, purported to file some medical certificates for treating her to be on leave from 1st May, 1989 to 19th February, 1993. Appellant by its letter dated 10th March, 1993 asked her to produce copies of the representations made by her during B^{the period of·her absence as also the acknowledgement receipts} thereto to examine her case. The period of absence having not satisfactorily been explained by the respondent, her services were terminated by an order dated 24th July, 1998 stating :-

¶98

...

¶99

"13. The request of Smt. Mary Manoranjani has been c examined with reference to the records available and it is clearly established that she had absented from duty w.e.f. April, 1989 onwards for reasons best known to her. There is nothing on record to show that she has either submitted any leave application or any medical certificate during the D period of her absence, until she again submitted application on 20.02.1993 requesting for permission to join today. The Balwadi/Sewing teachers have been appointed by the respective welfare associations located in slums and they were not appointed by MCH. Smt. Mary E Manoranjani has already been communicated that her request for rejoining into duty is rejected vide this office letter 7th cited. Smt. Mary Manoranjani has not put forth any new grounds to reconsider her case."

¶100

Aggrieved thereby she filed a writ petition before the F High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh in August, 1998. By a judgment and order dated gth March, 2004 a learned Single Judge of the High Court, without entering into the merit of the matter, allowed the said petition stating :-

¶101

"Admittedly, the Government has issued G.O.Ms. No.27 G on 16.1.1991 and as per the contents of the said G.O. voluntarily workers working in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad should be absorbed in regular vacancies by relaxing the rules relating to employment exchange etc., and from the papers produced by the learned counsel for

+--

•

COMMNR., MUNICIPAL CORPN. HYDERABAD & ORS. v. P. MARY MANORANJANI & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

635

, ~

•

the petitioner, it is clear that a list of casual workers was A prepared and the petitioner is placed at serial No.100. When once the petitioner is in the list of candidates and the purpose of G.O.Ms. No.27 is to give relaxation of the existing rules and for absorption of those who are working as casual workers as on the date of the G.O., it cannot be B said that the petitioner's case cannot be considered simply on the ground that as on the date of interview she was not in actual service. Hence, I deem fit to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Lower Division Typist or in any other c equivalent post in terms of G.O.Ms. No.27 dated 16.1.1991."

¶112

An intra court appeal preferred by the appellant thereagainst has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the said High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.

¶113

¶114

Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the impugned orders of the High Court are ex facie illegal as in a case of this nature the aforesaid G.O.Ms. cannot be said to have any application E whatsoever.

¶115

Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that keeping in view the tenor of the order passed by the learned Single Judge which has been affirmed by the Division Bench, as a mere direction for consideration of the case of the respondent in terms of the said G.O.M. has been made, no interference therewith by this Court is warranted.

¶116

¶117

Constitutional scheme in regard to public employment as enumerated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India G is explicit. Any appointment made by a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India must be subject to the constitutional scheme. In making appointments the State is obligated fo comply with the same as also statutory requirements, if any. Neither the appellant nor the State could H

¶118

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 1 S.C.R.

636

I-

A grant any exemption in regard to compliance of the statutory requirements.

¶125

The G.O.M. granted only exemption from sponsorship of the names by the Employment Exchange. Appellant did not and in fact could not ask for grant of any exemption from its B obligation to comply with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or other Statutory Rules operating in the field in this behalf. It is now a well settled principle of law that any appointment made in violation of the statute or the constitutional provision would be illegal. (See - Secretary State c of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi (3) and others :(2006) 4 sec 1.

¶126

G.O. Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated 15th January, 1991, therefore, is not at all applicable in a case of this nature, where D^{a candidatenot only didnotappear at thewrittentest for the} purpose of recruitment to the regular post but also failed to attend to her duties for a number of years. Respondent was engaged for a particular purpose, namely- to impart education to the poor children. She failed to carry out her contractual E^obligations.

;... ..

... ,..

Only when she came to learn of the fact that a complaint had ceen made against her, she raquested either for her recruitment as a typist or grant her leave on medical ground, which ex-facie appears to be mala fide.

¶131

¶132

F 17. We, therefore, are of the opinion that she did not have any legal right to continue in the said post. The airection of the High Court to consider her case in the light of G.0.Ms. No. 27 M.A. (Q) dated 15th January, 1991 is eminently unsustainable as the said government order would have no application to the G facts and circumstances of the case.

¶133

¶134

..,...

¶135

For the reasons abovementioned the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, there shan ::le no order as to costs.

¶136

H K.K.T.

¶137

Appeal allowed.

¶138

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Final order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. No. 1714 of 2004, dated 4.11.2004, dismissing the appellant-Corporation's intra-court appeal and thereby affirming the learned Single Judge's direction to consider the respondent's case for appointment under G.O.Ms. No. 27.¶43
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (Division Bench) · 4.11.2004
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 joined the appellant-Corporation as Balwadi Teacher (casual worker) on an honorarium of Rs.100/- per month.¶52
Prior proceeding
On the Corporation's request, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.27 M.A. (Q) exempting 214 voluntary workers from the Employment Exchange procedure so they could be considered for appointment.¶67
Prior proceeding
For selection to a regular post the respondent was required to appear for interview and written test; she appeared in the interview on 24th December, 1991 but did not appear in the written test, and absented herself from duties from April, 1989.¶86
Prior proceeding
Jai Prakash Nagar Welfare Association, by letter dated 2nd June, 1992, requested the Corporation to terminate the respondent's services for continuous unauthorised absence.¶86
Prior proceeding
On learning of the complaint, the respondent requested on 12th February, 1993 to be appointed as typist, admitting she could not attend the written test and typewriting examination.¶88
Prior proceeding
Her explanation of absence not being satisfactory, the Corporation terminated her services by order dated 24th July, 1998.¶97
Prior proceeding
Respondent filed a writ petition in August, 1998; by judgment dated 9th March, 2004 (printed 'gth March, 2004') a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh, without entering into merits, allowed it and directed consideration of her case for appointment as Lower Division Typist or equivalent post in terms of G.O.Ms. No.27 dated 16.1.1991.¶100

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Hyderabad and Others v. P. Mary Manoranjani and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Hyderabad and Others v. P. Mary Manoranjani and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Shukla versus Union of India

M/S. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. versus M/S. Rajvir Industries Ltd. & Ors.

M/S. Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. versus the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors.

K.T. Palanisamy versus State of Tamil Nadu

Krishna Janardhan Bhat versus Dattatraya G. Hegde

Benjamin versus State Rep. by Inspector of Police