New Delhi, February 13 (PTI): 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. 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.”
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. 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.”
