Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court held that the petitioner, who sought reinstatement in Panchayat service after earlier termination, could not be reinstated when the appointment itself was contrary to statutory rules. The Court categorically observed that “reinstatement cannot be ordered contrary to statutory provisions” and emphasized that mere equity or sympathy cannot override binding rules. It dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Panchayat and higher authorities refusing reinstatement.
Facts
The petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk in the Panchayat on a provisional basis. His appointment, however, was not made through the statutory Public Service Commission, as mandated under the relevant rules governing Panchayat service appointments. Later, when the authorities realized the irregularity, his service was terminated.
The petitioner, instead of contesting the legality of his initial appointment, sought reinstatement on the ground that he had served for a considerable period and that principles of natural justice required that his service should not be arbitrarily terminated. He approached the High Court contending that equity demanded restoration of his service and that he was willing to undergo regularization if necessary.
The Panchayat and higher administrative authorities, however, resisted his claim on the basis that his very entry into service was contrary to the statutory provisions and hence no right to reinstatement could accrue.
Issues
- Whether a person who obtained employment in Panchayat service contrary to the statutory recruitment rules can claim reinstatement.
- Whether equity, sympathy, or length of service can override statutory provisions in cases of irregular appointments.
- Whether the termination of the petitioner violated principles of natural justice.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that he had worked in the Panchayat service for a considerable time and had gained experience which entitled him to reinstatement. He argued that his termination was arbitrary, as no proper hearing was given to him before removal. He emphasized that the doctrine of legitimate expectation and fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution would require the Court to direct reinstatement or at least continuation in service until a properly selected candidate was available.
He further argued that since the Panchayat itself had permitted him to work for such a long period, it was inequitable to deny him reinstatement solely on the ground of an irregular initial appointment. He placed reliance on judgments where courts had granted equitable relief to employees whose appointments suffered from procedural defects but not from illegality.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Panchayat authorities argued that the petitioner’s appointment was void ab initio since it violated the statutory mandate that recruitment to Panchayat service must be conducted through the Public Service Commission. The continuation of such an employee would amount to perpetuating illegality.
They further contended that principles of equity cannot override statutory provisions. Sympathy for an individual cannot be a ground to contravene clear legal mandates. Since the petitioner’s appointment was not only irregular but illegal, no right accrued to him that could be protected through a writ.
They relied upon authoritative precedents of the Supreme Court which laid down that illegal appointments cannot be regularized by judicial orders, as doing so would open the floodgates to backdoor entries.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed the statutory provisions governing Panchayat service recruitment, which explicitly required appointments through the Public Service Commission. The petitioner’s entry, being outside this framework, was considered not merely irregular but wholly illegal.
The Court distinguished between irregular appointments, where some procedural rules are overlooked but the substantive authority exists, and illegal appointments, where the very authority to appoint is absent. In the present case, since the Panchayat had no authority to appoint without going through the Public Service Commission, the appointment was illegal.
The Court reiterated that under service jurisprudence, equity cannot be used to validate what the law prohibits. Sympathy, hardship, or length of service cannot clothe an illegal appointment with legitimacy.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to several leading judgments:
- State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 — The Supreme Court held that backdoor entries into public service cannot be regularized. It drew a clear distinction between irregular and illegal appointments and mandated strict adherence to recruitment rules. This principle was directly applied in the present case to deny reinstatement.
- R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah (1972) 1 SCC 409 — The Supreme Court held that appointments made in contravention of statutory rules are void and confer no right on the appointee. This case was cited to reinforce that an illegal appointment cannot ripen into a valid one by mere passage of time.
- State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 — The Court held that sympathy and equitable considerations cannot justify illegal appointments. The present Court echoed this reasoning.
These authorities made it clear that no direction for reinstatement could be issued when the entry itself was illegal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that while the petitioner may have worked for a considerable period, he could not claim any enforceable right to reinstatement because the foundation of his employment was itself contrary to law. A void appointment cannot be resurrected by invoking sympathy or natural justice.
The Court also rejected the plea of violation of natural justice. It noted that since the appointment itself was void ab initio, the question of procedural fairness did not arise. Natural justice principles apply to protect lawful rights, not to perpetuate illegality.
The Court concluded that reinstatement would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging illegal appointments and weakening the authority of the Public Service Commission.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the decision of the Panchayat authorities. It held that reinstatement cannot be ordered when the initial appointment is contrary to statutory rules. The Court affirmed that equity cannot override legality, and “sympathy cannot be the basis for validating illegality.”
Implications
This judgment reinforces the supremacy of statutory recruitment rules in public employment. It sends a strong message that illegal appointments cannot be validated by courts and that Public Service Commission procedures must be strictly followed. It also clarifies that natural justice principles cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality. The ruling protects merit-based recruitment and prevents misuse of backdoor entries into public service.
FAQs
Q1: Can an illegally appointed Panchayat employee claim reinstatement after termination?
No. The Court held that reinstatement cannot be ordered when the appointment itself is contrary to statutory rules.
Q2: Does long service or equity entitle an illegally appointed person to regularization?
No. The Court reiterated that neither length of service nor sympathy can validate an illegal appointment, following the principle in Umadevi’s case.
Q3: What distinction did the Court draw between irregular and illegal appointments?
An irregular appointment is one where there is a procedural lapse but authority exists. An illegal appointment is one where the authority to appoint itself is absent. Only irregular appointments can sometimes be regularized; illegal ones cannot.
Also Read: