Karam Singh vs Haryana State Horticulture Development Agency

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure P-11) by which the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected; and further, a writ of Mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in the light of policy decision dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-8) and policy decision dated 21.08.2014 (Annexure -9) and the petitioner be granted all consequential benefits.

It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil)/Consultant on contract basis against an advertisement and after undergoing written test and interview vide order dated 19.04.2011 (Annexure P-1). Learned Senior Counsel contends that in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC online SC 3826 as well as in view of the fact that the policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-8) has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent judgment dated 16.04.2026 in Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana; as also the fact that the petitioner has put in more than 15 years of regular service without any break and to the satisfaction of the respondents, the petitioner is entitled for regularization. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has also moved a representation dated 29.08.2014 (Annexure P-10) for regularization of his service. However, vide impugned order dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure P-11) claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there are no sanctioned posts.

It is contended that in Jaggo’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that an incumbent having 10 years or more service is entitled for regularization. Moreover, the policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-8) has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra). Qua the rejection of representation (Annexure P-10) of the petitioner on the ground of non-availability of sanctioned posts, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ranbir Singh vs. State of Haryana: Law Finder Doc. ID # 5092, wherein it has been held that ‘when the respondents have framed the policy of regularization, it does not lie in their mouth to say that there is no sanctioned post available’.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied at this stage if a direction is issued to respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the aforementioned judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court in a time bound manner.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent-State submits that he has ‘no objection’ in case the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage, is accepted. It is also submitted by learned State counsel that the service tenure of the petitioner needs to be ascertained as to whether he has rendered continuous and satisfactory service to make him eligible for regularization.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and without commenting upon the merits of the present petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/Competent Authority, concerned, to forthwith consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for regularization by passing a speaking and reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of 06 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, while keeping in mind the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo’s case (supra) as well as Madan Singh’s case (supra) as well as judgment of this Court in Ranbir Singh’s case (supra).

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.