Appointments to Government Service Must Adhere to Constitutional Mandates,” Rules Bombay High Court

Industrial Court’s order granting permanency to temporary hospital staff overturned due to non-compliance with Articles 14 and 16. The Bombay High Court has quashed an Industrial Court’s directive granting permanency to several temporary employees of rural hospitals. The ruling underscores that mere completion of 240 days of service does not automatically entitle temporary government employees to permanent positions without adherence to constitutional requirements for public employment.

The case involves multiple petitions filed by the Medical Superintendents and Civil Surgeons of various rural hospitals against the Industrial Court’s order dated June 19, 2022. The respondents, employed in temporary positions like Junior Clerk, Laboratory Technician, and Class-IV posts, had alleged unfair labor practices and sought permanency. Their appointments, made during 2000-2001, were temporary and were regularly extended by issuing new orders for further periods of three months.

The court noted that the initial appointments were made to address immediate staffing needs due to the absence or training of regular employees. These engagements were temporary and explicitly limited in duration, with employees providing undertakings acknowledging their temporary status.

The Industrial Court had granted permanency based on the completion of 240 days of service in a year, citing Clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders. However, the High Court emphasized that this does not automatically confer a right to permanency, especially when appointments were made without following a proper selection process as mandated by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne articulated that granting permanency to backdoor entrants who did not participate in a legitimate selection process contravenes constitutional mandates. “Appointments to government service must adhere to constitutional principles of equality and public participation,” the court stated. It further highlighted that the interim orders allowing respondents to continue in service led to a situation where multiple individuals occupied the same sanctioned posts, causing administrative and financial inefficiencies.

Justice Marne remarked, “The Industrial Court committed an error in allowing complaints filed by respondents who did not make out any case for seeking continuation or permanency. Their continuation in service has resulted in two incumbents working on one post. Sanctioned posts in government service cannot be filled by regularizing such appointees.”

The High Court’s decision reiterates the importance of adhering to constitutional procedures in public employment. By setting aside the Industrial Court’s order, the judgment reinforces that temporary employees cannot claim permanency without undergoing a formal selection process. This ruling is expected to impact future cases involving claims of unfair labor practices and demands for regularization in public service.

Date of Decision: June 26, 2024