# P. RAVINDRAN AND ORS v. UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1996] Supp. 7 S.C.R. 158
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-10-01
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/p-ravindran-and-ors-v-union-territory-of-pondicherry-and-ors-14837
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Service Law :
Ad-hoc appointment~Lecturers appointed on ad-hoc basis in Union
C Tenitory of Pondicheny-Appeared before Public Service Commission at the
time of regular recruitment-Not selected-Subsequently they filed petitions
before Administrative Tribunal claiming regularisation-Tribunal dismissed
the claim observing that since the posts were required to be filled up by
recruitment from the open market through Commission, it had no power to
issue directions to regularise petitioners' services-Held, Tribunal rightly
D rejected the claim-The Commission having been entrusted with the constitutional duty to select suitable candidates by inviting applications from open
market, every candidate has a fundamental right to seek consideration and
for selection through open competition-Process of recruitment through Commission, as envisaged under the Constitution, cannot be bypassed by issuing
E direction for regularisation of services of ad-hoc persons.
J & K Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors.,
[1994] SCC (L & S) 723, relied on.

## Text

A
P. RAVINDRAN AND ORS.
v.
UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY AND ORS.
OCTOBER 1, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Service Law :
Ad-hoc appointment~Lecturers appointed on ad-hoc basis in Union
C Tenitory of Pondicheny-Appeared before Public Service Commission at the
time of regular recruitment-Not selected-Subsequently they filed petitions
before Administrative Tribunal claiming regularisation-Tribunal dismissed
the claim observing that since the posts were required to be filled up by
recruitment from the open market through Commission, it had no power to
issue directions to regularise petitioners' services-Held, Tribunal rightly
D rejected the claim-The Commission having been entrusted with the constitutional duty to select suitable candidates by inviting applications from open
market, every candidate has a fundamental right to seek consideration and
for selection through open competition-Process of recruitment through Commission, as envisaged under the Constitution, cannot be bypassed by issuing
E direction for regularisation of services of ad-hoc persons.
J & K Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors.,
[1994] SCC (L & S) 723, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
p
Nos. 20933-36 of 1996.
From the Judgment
and
Order dated 20.2.96 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. Nos. 290, 292-93 and 782 of
1995.
G
K.M.K. Nair for the Petitioners.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
H
The special leave petitions arise from the orders of the Administra158
-\
P.RAVINDRANv. UNIONTERRITORYOFPONDICHERRY
159
tive Tribunal made on February 20, 1996 in QA No. 290/95 and batch. A
The petitioners were appointed as Lecturers on ad hoc basis and some
of them had obtained M. Phil, Ph.D. also. When the regular recruitment
through the Public Service Commission (the "Commission", for short) was
conducted, the petitioners also appeared before the Commission but they
were not selected. Subsequently, the petitioners filed petitions for B
regularisation of their services. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has
pointed out that since posts are required to be filled up by recruitment
from the open market through the Commission, the Tribunal has no
power to issue direction to regularise the services. Thus, these special
leave petitions.
c
Shri K.M.K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended
that the petitioners are Post-graduates, M.Phil and Ph.D. and they are
highly qualified and have acquired experienc_e from 1987 as lecturers.
When they were appointed, number of vacancies were available. Since D
they have been working since 1987, they require to be regularised by
suitable directions. We find no force in the contention. The admitted
position is that the Commission having been entrusted with the constitutional duty to select suitable candidates by inviting applications from the
open market, every candidate has a fundamental right to seek consideration and for selection through open competition. The petitioners also have E
that right. At one time, they staked their claims but were not selected.
Therefore, the process of recruitment through the Commission, as envisaged under the Constitution, cannot be bypassed by issuing direction
for regularisation of the services of the ad hoc persons who had come to
the service through back-door entry. This Court in catena of decisions
has deprecated this practice of regularisation except in extra-ordinary
cases by directing the Government to frame a scheme and regularise Class
F
III and IV services in accordance with the scheme. Even in subsequent
decisions, that leverage is not being insisted upon. This Court in J & K
Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors., (1994] G
SCC (L & S) 723 had held that the Court cannot adopt hybrid process
of direction to regularise the services bypassing process of selection
envisaged under the Constitution. This Court has deprecated the Government for exercising the power under Article 320 of the Constitution taking
out the posts from the purview of the Commission and to regularise H
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
. A services de hors the Commission. Under those circumstances, we are of
the view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim to grant the relief
sought for.
The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed subject to the
B benefit of relaxation of age bar till the date of next recruitment so as to
consider the cases of the petitioners along with open candidates.
R.P.
Petitions dismissed.