संविधान को बाई पास कर के की गई भर्ती को नियमित नही किया जा सकता

www.teacherharyana.blogspot.com (Recruitment , vacancy , job , news) www.facebook.com/teacherharyana

by Fauji Lecturer 

यह है सुप्रीम कोर्ट का 10 अप्रैल 2006 का फैसला जिस के पारा नम्बर 44 में साफ लिखा है कि जिन कर्मचारियों को काम करते हुए 10 अप्रैल 2006 तक 10 साल या इस से ज्यादा हो गया है, कोर्ट का कोई केस नही है उन पर और प्रोसेस के तहत लगाये गए हैं उन को सिर्फ एक बार नियमित किया जा सकता है कोर्ट के फैसले से 6 महीने के अन्दर लेकिन बाद में जो भी भर्ती हो वह नियमित भर्ती होनी चाहिए, संविधान को बाई पास कर के की गई भर्ती को नियमित नही किया जा सकता

इस फैसले को पढ़ कर कोई भी बता सकता है कि हरियाणा सरकार की 3 साल और 10 साल वाली पालिसी असवैंधानिक हैं और हरियाणा सरकार के पास कोई अधिकार नही है कि भारत के संविधान को बाई पास कर के वो कच्चे कर्मचारियों को नियमित कर सके.

गेस्ट टीचर्स के लिए तो कोई विज्ञापन तक भी नही निकाला फिर कैसे नियमित हो सकते हैं ?

पढ़िए सुप्रीम कोर्ट का 10 अप्रैल 2006 का फैसला :-

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3595-3612 of 1999

PETITIONER:
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others

RESPONDENT:
Umadevi and others

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/2006

BENCH:
Y.K. SABHARWAL ARUN KUMAR G.P. MATHUR, C.K. THAKKER & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1861-2063/2001, 3849/2001,
3520-3524/2002 and CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1968 of 2006
arising out of SLP(C)9103-9105 OF 2001
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

15. We have already indicated the constitutional scheme of public
employment in this country, and the executive, or for that matter the Court,
in appropriate cases, would have only the right to regularize an appointment
made after following the due procedure, even though a non-fundamental
element of that process or procedure has not been followed. This right of the
executive and that of the court, would not extend to the executive or the
court being in a position to direct that an appointment made in clear
violation of the constitutional scheme, and the statutory rules made in that
behalf, can be treated as permanent or can be directed to be treated as
permanent.

44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where
irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.
NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N.
NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly
qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and
the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the
intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of
regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered
on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases
above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the
Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should
take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such
irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly
sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and
should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those
vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary
employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be
set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that
regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened
based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the
constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not
duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.