Case Name: Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4126 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 1 May 2024
Quorum: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The appellant, Dr. Vimal Sukumar, served as an Assistant Professor in the English Department at Voorhees College, Vellore, which is affiliated with Thiruvalluvar University. His appointment , initially made without formal adherence to statutory procedures, was contractual and periodically renewed. Dr. Sukumar claimed regularisation under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act,1976, asserting that he had long served in a sanctioned post and met the required qualifications.
His request for regularisation and back wages was rejected by the High Court, which held that the appointment was not made according to law and that the post was not government-sanctioned. Aggrieved, Dr. Sukumar appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether Dr Sukumar’s appointment was made under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act,1976.
- If he was entitled to regularisation of service and back wages despite procedural irregularities in the appointment.
- Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation could override statutory non-compliance in service appointments.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act,1976
- Relevant service jurisprudence concerning irregular appointments and regularisation
APPELLANTS CONTENTIONS
- He had already served the institution for a substantial duration in an academic position that was required and for which he was fully qualified.
- The repeated renewal of his service created a legitimate expectation of regularisation.
- Procedural lapses, if any , should not be held against a candidate who has diligently discharged academic duties and served students over the years.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTIONS
- The appellants appointment was not made in compliance with the Act; there was no proper advertisement, no selection by a duly constituted committee, and no sanction for the post.
- In the absence of a sanctioned post, no entitlement to regularisation or back wages could arise.
- Allowing such regularisation would violate statutory rules and open the door for other irregular appointments to claim legal sanctity.
ANALYSIS
- The Supreme Court held that the regularisation of service cannot be granted when appointments are not made with respect to the applicable statutory provisions.
- Even though employees may sometimes expect continuity in service, such expectations can’t override the rules clearly laid down in law.
- Right from the beginning, the appellant’s appointment didn’t follow the proper process and wasn’t made against a post approved by the government.
- Regularising such appointments would go against the very idea of fair and transparent hiring in public institutions.
The Court emphasized that public employment must adhere strictly to norms ensuring equal opportunity and fairness.
JUDGMENT
The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the HC decision and found out that there was no legal ground to be granting regularisation or back wages. The appointment of Dr. Sukumar was declared as irregular and incapable of being regularised in law. Sympathy and equitable consideration , the Court held it cannot be allowed to substitute for legality.
CONCLUSION
This decision reaffirms the primacy of statutory compliance in public employment and discourages any claims for regularisation based on prolonged or irregular service. The judgment reinforces that legitimate expectation and the equitable considerations can not substitute for the rule of law in service jurisprudence. Institutions and governments are reminded that public posts must be filled transparently and according to law , and employees appointed through such irregular processes cannot claim the permanent status merely over time.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY PRIYANKA DESHIKAN.
