New Delhi: A person employed in violation
of prescribed rules is not entitled to any benefit, including
salary, the Supreme Court has held.
"If any appointment is made by merely inviting names
from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice
Board, that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and
16 (equality clause) of the Constitution.
"Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the
candidates who are eligible for the post, from being
considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions
is not entitled to any relief including salary," a bench of
justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan said.
The bench passed the judgement while upholding an
appeal filed by the Orissa government challenging a state high
court order directing payment of revised UGC scales to certain
lecturers appointed illegally and not fulfilling the
eligibility norms for enhanced salary structure.
Mamata and others were appointed as lecturers on July
9, 1979. Applications to these posts were invited through the
respective notice boards of the colleges receiving
grant-in-aid from the government.
Subsequently, a notification was issued on October 6,
1989 by the government for revised pay scale enforceable with
effect from January 1, 1986.
The revised pay scale was applicable only in such
cases where the post has been granted the benefit of
grant-in-aid Scheme by April 1, 1989 and person holding that
post had a good academic record with 54 per cent or its
equivalent grade in a Masters` course.
Despite the lecturers concerned not fulfilling the
eligibility criteria, the Orissa High Court directed that they
be extended the benefit even though the claimants had
approached the court after 10-12 years.
Aggrieved, the state government appealed in the apex
According to the apex court, it is a settled legal
proposition that no person can be appointed even on a
temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from
all eligible candidates.
"Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons
have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake,
such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner
to get the same relief.
"The authority at the time of granting approval has to
apply its mind to find out whether a person possessing the
minimum eligibility has been appointed. In the instant case,
it appears to be a clear cut case of arbitrariness which
cannot be approved."