STATE OF U P Vs. SHIV BABU GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. These Special Appeals are being disposed of by a com mon judgment, as common questions of law arise in all these appeals. The learned Single Judge, in the writ petition giving rise to these special appeals, passed an order directing the appellants to regularise the service of the petitioner-respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner-respondents were working in the Forest Department and their contention was that they had been working for more than three years and were entitled for reguiarisation. THE learned Single Judge, taking the view that as the petitioners had been working for more than three years, they were entitled for reguiarisation, allowed the writ peti tions and directed the appellants to regularise the services of the petitioners on the post on which they had been work ing.

(3.) WHILE making regularisation the authorities have further to examine whether the appointment of an employee was made in accordance with Rules. If the initial appointment is itself invalid, an employee is not entitled for regularisation merely on the ground that he had worked for many long years. In Jandk. Public Service Commission and others v. Dr. Narinder Mohan and others, AIR 1994 SC1808, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the directions given by the High Court to regularise the service of ad hoc employees on the ground that the appointments were to be made under the Jammu and Kashmir Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979. These Rules prescribed only two modes of recruitment i. e. direct recruitment or promotion by selection. The direction given by the High Court for regularisation by considering the service records of ad hoc employees was held as hybrid procedure not con templated by the Rules. Hon'ble K. Ramaswamy, J. observed: "it is settled law that once statutory rules have been made, the appointment shall be made only in accordance with the rules. The executive power could be exercised only to all in the gap but the instructions cannot aid should not supplant the law but would only sup plement the law. . . Having made the rules the executive cannot call back its general power under Article 162 to regularise the ad hoc appointments under the Rules. "