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 court.
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."