New Delhi, Feb 13 (PTI) A person employed in violationof prescribed rules is not entitled to any benefit, includingsalary, the Supreme Court has held.
"If any appointment is made by merely inviting namesfrom the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the NoticeBoard, that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and16 (equality clause) of the Constitution.
"Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives thecandidates who are eligible for the post, from beingconsidered. A person employed in violation of these provisionsis not entitled to any relief including salary," a bench ofjustices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan said.
The bench passed the judgement while upholding anappeal filed by the Orissa government challenging a state highcourt order directing payment of revised UGC scales to certainlecturers appointed illegally and not fulfilling theeligibility norms for enhanced salary structure.
Mamata and others were appointed as lecturers on July9, 1979. Applications to these posts were invited through therespective notice boards of the colleges receivinggrant-in-aid from the government.
Subsequently, a notification was issued on October 6,1989 by the government for revised pay scale enforceable witheffect from January 1, 1986.
The revised pay scale was applicable only in suchcases where the post has been granted the benefit ofgrant-in-aid Scheme by April 1, 1989 and person holding thatpost had a good academic record with 54 per cent or itsequivalent grade in a Masters'' course.Despite the lecturers concerned not fulfilling theeligibility criteria, the Orissa High Court directed that theybe extended the benefit even though the claimants hadapproached the court after 10-12 years.
Aggrieved, the state government appealed in the apexcourt.
According to the apex court, it is a settled legalproposition that no person can be appointed even on atemporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications fromall eligible candidates.
"Thus, even if some other similarly situated personshave been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake,such order does not confer any legal right on the petitionerto get the same relief.
"The authority at the time of granting approval has toapply its mind to find out whether a person possessing theminimum eligibility has been appointed. In the instant case,it appears to be a clear cut case of arbitrariness whichcannot be approved." .