- (1.) The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on July 19, 2007 passed the following order: "In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai and another, (2005) 5 SCC 124, Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Bhola Singh AIR 2005 SC 1790, Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd. (2007)1 SCC 533, Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another (2006) 6 SCC 221, Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 3657, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Worken (2007)1 SCC 408, J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P.Agrawal, (2007) 2 SCC 433, HUDA v. Jagmal Singh (2006)5 SCC 764, Municipal Corporation, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, (2006) 3 SCC 81, Rattan Singh v. Union of India and another (1997)11 SCC 396, General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591, Municipal Council, Samrala v. Sukhwinder Kaur (2006)6 SCC 516, U.P.SRTC Ltd. v. Sarada Prasad Misra (2006) 4 SCC 733, Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1, UP State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and another v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006)1 SCC 479, State of U. P. v. Neeraj Awasthi (2006) 1 SCC 667 and D.B. Judgment of this Court in Rajinder Singh CWP No. 4980 of2005 decided on 28.3.2006, there is no merit in this petition. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Adjourned sine die".
(2.) The ratio of above said judgments has been reiterated by this Court to say that unless an employee is appointed as per rules and regulations, his appointment cannot be treated to be consistent with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Appointment given de hors the rules and regulations is liable for termination and is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") and thus does not amount to retrenchment. It has been also held that reinstatement of workman in public employment will not be consistent with Article 14 unless a workman had been appointed by following rules and regulations.
(3.) To distinguish the judgments in the order dated July 19, 2007, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwa Vidyalaya v. United Trades Congress and Another (2008)1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 504.;