Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

E. RAMAKRISHNAN AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Decided
4 September 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 533 · 1996 INSC 997
Also cited as
  • (1996) 10 SCC 565 (16 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The petitioners were appointed as Field Workers in the Filaria Department of the State Government between 1981 and 1985. In the first instance, they had filed W.P. No. 250/92 and the High Court directed the Government to consider their representation and dispose it of by judgment dated January 18, 1993. When they came to this Court, this Court directed the Government to consider their cases in the light of the law laid down by this Court in State of Harya11a v. Piara Si11gh, (1982) 4 SCC 118. Subsequently, since the Government had not taken any steps, the petitioners filed another writ petition. In the meanwhile, the Public Service Commission (PSC) had selected the candidates who were not being appointed. Therefore, the selectees approaches the High Court and filed the writ petition. The petitioners also filed the writ petition in the High Court seeking for regularisation. The High Court in the impugned order dated June 24, 1996 in O.P. No. 17422/93 dismissed the batch of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, allowed the writ petitions filed by the selectees and directed the Government to appoint the candidates selected through the PSC. It also directed the Government to send the requisition to the PSC to fill up the posts of 30 vacancies from the list of the selected candidates prepared by the PSC. Thus this special leave petition.

pp. 533–534, margin F

It is sought to be contenctdd by Mr. M.M. Paikeday, learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Piara Singh 's case and in view of the fact that the petitioners have been continuing for more than 14 years, they are required to be regularised. We find no force in the contention. Admittedly, the posts are to be filled up through selection by PSC recruitment norms. Necessarily, therefore, the requisition was sent for selection through the PSC and candidates came to be selected. U~der those circumstances, the candidates, who were found eligible and selected and recommended for appointment by the PSC, were required to be appointed. The Court rightly had exercised the power in. declining. to regularise the services of the petitioners.

p. 534, margin C

The learned counsel sought to rely upon an order of the Government where the Government had decided to regularise the services of the ad hoc employees; Obviously, since the decision runs into the teeth of statutory requirement under. Article 320 of the Constitution the Government cannot take any decision contrary to the Constitution to regularise the services of the candidates de hors the recruitment rules and the statutory process for selection t~rough the PSC. The High Court, therefore, has rightly given direction to the Government to notify 30 vacancies and odd or whatever may be the vacancies existing .to fill up from amongst the candidates selected by the PSC.

p. 534, margin E

It is then contended that the petitioners have turned over-aged and, therefore, necessary direction may be given to regularise their service by filling up the unfilled posts. Even that relief also cannot be granted. If the petitioners have turned over-aged on the date of recruitment, it would be I I

p. 534, margin G

E. RAMAKRISHNAN v. STATE 535 for the appropriate Government to relax the age requirement and the petitioners have to stand in the queue and get selection through the PSC.. Thus what they get is only the right to appointment to the posts.

p. 535

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. G.N . Petition dismissed.

p. 535, margin A