WA/3751/2004 of N.SELVAN S/O.NAGAMANI 32 CID Vs THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLIC on 29 December 2004

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

This appeal has been filed against the impugned order of thelearned single Judge dated 27.8.2004.

2. The appellant was only a daily wage employee who workedfrom 1991 to 1994. A daily wage employee is only a temporaryemployee. It is well settled that a temporary employee has noright to the post vide STATE OF U.P. V. KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA((1991) 1 S.C.C. 691).

3. Hence, obviously, the appellant has no right to the post.

4. The learned single Judge has, however, directed that heshould be considered for fresh appointment if the law permits. Inour opinion, there is no infirmity in this order of the learnedsingle Judge. If the law does not permit, obviously, the appellantcannot be considered. For instance, if there is an age limit, then,this Court cannot direct that he should be considered if he hascrossed the age limit. It is only if the rules permit relaxationin the age limit that the authority concerned can consider suchrelaxation in accordance with the said provision for relaxation.But, if there is no provision for relaxation of the age limit, thisCourt cannot direct that a person, who is over-age, should beconsidered.

5. Judges cannot take over the role of the Legislature orexecutive, as held by us in RAMA.MUTHURAMALINGAM Vs. DEPUTYSUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (2004 (5) CTC 554). Judges must exerciseself-restraint and cannot direct that the law should be broken,rather, it is their duty to direct that the law should be followed.If a person is over-age, it may cause hardship to him, but on theground of hardship, we cannot direct that the law should be broken.When there is any conflict between the law and equity, it is thelaw which has to prevail, however great the hardship that may becaused. As is said in Latin, 'dura lex sed lex', which means, 'Thelaw is hard, but it is the law.'

For the reasons given above, there is no force in this appealand it is dismissed. No costs.

KsvSd/Asst.Registrar

/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1. The Inspector General of Police Southern Sector, CRPF Road No.12, Senjaver Mills Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh-500 004.2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Avadi Chennai-600 065.3. The Principal RIC – II CRPF, Avadi Chennai-600 065.+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader High Court Madras in SR No.58136+ 1 cc to Mr.S.Manikumar, Advocate in SR No.57963+ 1 cc to Mr.R.Singgaravelan, Advocate in SR No. 58211W.A.No.3751 of 2004CP(CO)SR/7.1