FATEH SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made in the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is that a direction be issued to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Pump Operator/Water Pump Operator-II (a Group 'C' post) on which he claims to be working with effect from 1.12.1991. The respondent department has regularised the services of the petitioner to the post of Pump Attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940, which is a Group 'D' post.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi & others, 2006 4 SCC 1, wherein it has been laid down that procedure for making appointment to a public office has to be followed, which is considered to be basic structure of the Constitution, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) When the facts of the present case are viewed in the light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi's case it becomes evident that the initial appointment of the petitioner on the post of Water Pump Operator, a Group-C post was not in accordance with the procedure envisaged by the Rules. The minimum requirement of advertising the post in the Press, consideration of competing claims in accordance with a lawful criteria and then selection made on that basis have been completely given a go-by. Such an entry into service has been held to be against the basic structure of the Constitution as envisaged by Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, it has to be viewed as an illegality which cannot be cured by the magic band of regularization. Therefore, we do not find any ground to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Water Pump Operator. However, at the same time, we wish to clarify that we are not re-opening the issue of regularization of the services of the petitioner on a Group-D post of Pump Attendant because in Umadevi's case it has been laid down that the orders of regularization, if any, already made but not sub judice, is not required to be re-opened on the basis of the judgment in Umadevi's case . The aforementioned position is evident from para 53, which has been extracted above.