HARMINDER KAUR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

HARMINDER KAUR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Appointment of the appellants was purely contractual and for a specified period, clearly stating there is no claim for regular appointment. Regularisation is not a mode of appointment and cannot be directed based solely on long service; public appointments must follow the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity. The High Court was correct in dismissing claims for regularisation. However, while filling future vacancies, the Administrator may consider the cases of the appellants, including possible relaxation of the age limit.

Parties
Appellants: Harminder Kaur & Ors.; Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Regularisation of Service, Recruitment Rules, Contractual Appointments, Articles 14 and 16 – Constitution of India
Service Law Constitutional Law Regularisation of Service Recruitment Rules Contractual Appointments Articles 14 and 16 – Constitution of India

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harminder Kaur & Ors.

Appellants

Union of India & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether long tenure of service of contractually appointed teachers entitles them to regularisation under the Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre) (Group C) Recruitment Rules, 1991 and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

Appointment of the appellants was purely contractual and for a specified period, clearly stating there is no claim for regular appointment. Regularisation is not a mode of appointment and cannot be directed based solely on long service; public appointments must follow the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity. The High Court was correct in dismissing claims for regularisation. However, while filling future vacancies, the Administrator may consider the cases of the appellants, including possible relaxation of the age limit.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • No costs.