AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Mr. Santosh Mehra, Administrative Member:
The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following reliefs:-
“(a)To quash and/or set aside the impugned Order No. 2170 dated 25th October, 2024 issued by the Deputy Director Education (Personnel) whereby and thereunder the claim of the applicant for regularizing of his ad hoc service has been rejected by not complying with the observations made by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the order dated 09.01.2024 and also not considered the decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in WPCT No. 077 of 2009 wherein an identically and similarly circumstanced employee has got the same benefit being Annexure A-15 of this original application.
b)To pass an appropriate order directing upon the respondent authority to regularize the service of the applicant as Graduate Trained Teacher with effect from his initial date of appointment i.e. with effect from 14th /16th September, 1989 along with all consequential benefits in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in WPCT No. 077 of 2009 and WPCT No. 078 of 2009 being Annexure A-9 of this original application and in terms of the implementation order of the Directorate of Education vide office order No. 3992 dated 13th October, 2009 being Annexure A-10 of this original application as they have already complied with the High Court's judgment and gave the benefit in favour of the identically placed employees namely Shri Samir Lal Das (GTT) and Shri T. Marimuthu (GTT) with effect from their initial date of appointment who were also appointed against the sanctioned strength of GTT videoffice order dated 16th September, 1988 and 8th August, 1985. By virtue of the order dated 09.04.2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in WPCT No. 077 of 2009 and WPCT No. 078 of 2009, their appointment/promotion to the post of GTT has been antedated from the initial date of appointment i.e. 16th September, 1988 and 8th August, 1985, therefore, the same benefit may be extended in favour of the present applicant to the post of GTT from initial date of appointment i.e. 14th /16th September, 1989 along with all consequential benefits so that he may not be deprived by the respondent under any circumstances.
c)To declare that the present applicant who was initially appointed vide office order No. 2115 dated 14th September, 1989 to the post of PST against the sanctioned post of Graduate Trained Teacher but subsequently, he was promoted to the post of GTT in the year 2004. The identically placed employees i.e. Shri Samir Lal Das (GTT) and Shri T. Marimuthu (GTT) who also got appointment to the post of PST with effect from 16th September, 1988 and 8th August, 1985 against the sanctioned post of GTT by virtue of thejudgment of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in WPCT No. 077 of 2009 and WPCT No. 078 of 2009 being Annexure A-9 of this original application and by virtue of the implementation order of the Directorate of Education vide office order No. 3992 dated 13th October, 2009 being Annexure A-10 of this original application, their appointment to the post of GTT has been antedated with effect from 16th September, 1988 and 8th August, 1985 and by not giving such benefit to the present applicant is utter violation of the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Sharma -vs- Union of India &Ors. reported in 1998 (SCC) (L&S), pages 226 in the case of K.C. Sharma -vs-Union of India &Ors. and also violation of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in WPCT No. 077 of 2009 and WPCT No. 078 of 2009 being Annexure A-9 of this original application. In strength of such order, your applicant is entitled to get the benefit of regularization of his service to the post of GTT from the initial date of his appointment i.e. from 14th/16th September, 1989 along with all consequential benefits.”
The facts of the case in a nutshell is that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of Primary School Teacher on adhoc basis vide Order dated 14.09.1989 against the vacant post of Graduate Trained Teacher in the Education Department of Andaman & Nicobar Administration and he joined his duty on 16.09.1989 against a sanctioned post of Graduate Trained Teacher, which was extended by the competent authority from time to time. Since the respondent authority did not regularize his service from the initial date of his appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher, he made representations before the Directorate of Education, A&N Administration on 17.01.1995, 06.10.1995, 16.10.1995, 15.11.1998 and 20.02.1999 for taking immediate steps for considering his case for regularization of his ad hoc service and to effect his appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher w.e.f. from his initial date of appointment, which has not been considered by the authorities.
When vide Office Order No. 1402 dated 09.03.1999, the ad hoc appointment of the applicant to the post of Primary School Teacher was extended, he made a further representation to the Directorate of Education, A&N Administration on 14.05.1999 praying for regularization of his adhoc services from the initial date of his appointment to the post of PST and to give him promotion to the post of GTT. However, without considering his representation, the respondent authorities vide Order dated 18.08.1999 had regularized his ad hoc appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- w.e.f. 19.05.1997 and not with effect from his initial date of appointment i.e. 14.09.1989.
Upon receipt of Office Order dated 18.08.1999, he made a representation before the Directorate of Education, A&N Administration on 09.12.1999, 15.01.2001 and 07.03.2001 for giving pay protection as well as service benefit w.e.f. the initial date of his appointment i.e. w.e.f. 14.09.1989.
Subsequent thereto, the Directorate of Education, A&N Administration vide Office Order dated 21.07.2004 issued Order of promotion in favour of the applicant from PST to GTT in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. The primary grievance of the applicant is that initially he was selected as Graduate Trained Teacher way back in the year 1989. However, he was given appointment to the post of PST on adhoc basis against the sanctioned strength of Graduate Trained Teacher. Unfortunately, after a lapse of 14 years such Order has been issued not with effect from his initial date of appointment to the post of PST on 14.09.1989 wherein the name of the applicant figured at Srl. No. 50 in the said promotion Order.
The learned counsel for the applicant argues that while dealing with an identical issue, a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in WPCT No. 077 of 2009 in the matter of Union of India v. Shri Samir Lal Das and WPCT No. 078 of 2009 in the matter of Union of India v. T. Marimuthu has vide Order dated 09.04.2009 held that the original applicants i.e. Shri Samir Lal Das and Shri T. Marimuthu are entitled to get regularization w.e.f. the initial date of appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher. According to the applicant, the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Court at Port Blair) not only decided the issue in favour of the applicants but at the same time, had imposed a cost of Rs. 300 GM against the Union of India and, as such, the present applicant is entitled to get such identical relief from this Tribunal in light of the Order dated 09.04.2009.
The Directorate of Education, Andaman and Nicobar Administration vide Order dated 13.10.2009 complied with Order dated 12.12.2008 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 96/AN/2008 and O.A. 125/AN/2008 and in compliance of Order dated 09.04.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in WPCT No. 77 of 2009 and WPCT No. 78 of 2009 had granted the benefit in favour of the said applicants by granting the promotional post of GTT with effect from the initial date of appointment as Primary School Teacher.Accordingly, the two employees got appointment way back in the year 1988 and 1985 to the Post of Primary School Teacher against the sanctioned post of Graduate Trained Teacher and subsequently in terms of Orders passed by this Tribunal as well the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, they were granted identical relief by effecting their promotion to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher w.e.f. their initial date of appointment of Primary School Teacher.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant being similarly situated, is claiming similar benefits since the respondent authorities had duly extended the benefits vide Office Order dated 13.10.2009. He has made several representations duly enclosing his service certificates dated 04th April, 2014 before the respondent authorities for considering his case for regularization of his ad hoc service and also to give effect to appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher w.e.f. his initial date of appointment of PST i.e. with effect from 14.09.1989 and further that his service may be regularized as Graduate Trained Teacher with effect from 14th/16th September, 1989.
The Deputy Education Officer, Diglipur, North Andaman vide Office Letter dated 05.04.2014 forwarded the applicant’s representation to the Secretary-cum-Director of Education, Andaman and Nicobar Administration with all necessary documents pertaining to his regularization of the adhoc service to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher w.e.f. his initial date of appointment of Primary School Teacher. However, the Directorate of Education, Andaman & Nicobar Administration has not even dealt with the issue. Being aggrieved with the action of the respondents, the applicant made his last representation dated 28.11.2023 to the Respondent No. 05 with a prayer for regularization of his adhoc service in the post of GTT from his initial date of appointment in light of judgment and Order dated 09.04.2009 as referred to above. However, his case has not been considered by the authorities, which is a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Sharma v. UOI &ors. reported in 1998 (SCC) (L&S) 226.
Since the respondent authorities failed to extend the benefits as prayed for by the applicant, being aggrieved, he filed O.A. No. 351/25/2024 before this Tribunal which was heard and disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order dated 09.01.2024 , inter alia, directing the authorities to consider his pending representation dated 28.11.2023 expeditiously in the light of the contentions made by him therein and intimate the decision to the applicant.
Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities have issued a Speaking Order dated 25.10.2024 rejecting the claim of the applicant giving a complete go bye to the Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court.
The respondents have filed their replywherein they have contended that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of Primary School Teacher (PST) vide Order dated 14.09.1989 purely on adhoc basis against the post of Graduate Trained Teacher for the period up to 31st December, 1989 only, with the rider that he would not have any claim for regular appointment by dint of his appointment. Accordingly, without any reservation, the applicant joined the post of PST on 16.09.1989 in the post of PST, which was extended from time to time in terms of various Orders of the Directorate of Education. Thereafter, his service was regularized in the post of Primary School Teacher w.e.f. 19.05.1997 with the approval of the Administration vide DE’s Order No. 3936 dated 18.08.1999. Subsequently, vide Order No. 2983 dated 21.07.2004, the Directorate of Education had promoted the applicant from Primary School Teacher to Graduate Trained Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-.
He was regularized w.e.f. 19.05.1997 prospectively and the previous adhoc services of the applicant could not be considered for regularization by the department since the adhoc appointments cannot be deemed to be any substantive appointment inter alia holding as under:-
“i)That as per the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms O.M. No.22011/3/75-Estt(D) dated October 29, 1975 and the Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No.28036/8/87-Estt (D) dated March 30, 1988, persons appointed on ad-hoc basis to a grade are to be replaced by persons approved for regular appointment by direct recruitment, promotion or transfer (absorption), as the case may be, at the earliest opportunity. These instructions also provide that whenever an appointment is made on ad-hoc basis, the fact that the appointment is ad-hoc and that such an appointment will not bestow on the person a claim for regular appointment should be clearly spelt out in the orders of appointment. It should also be made clear that the service rendered on ad-hoc basis in the grade concerned would not count for the purpose of seniority in that grade and for eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade. It is, therefore, an ad-hoc appointee has to be replaced by a regularly selected candidate as per provisions of the recruitment rules and in accordance with the prescribed procedure at the earliest possible and in no case such an officer should be regularized. In the cases, where a judicial order is received for regularization of an ad-hoc employee, steps may be taken to contest the same in the light of the specific conditions on which the offer of appointment on ad-hoc basis was made, the policy of the Government in this regard and the various judicial pronouncements of the apex court. If in a particular case, the concerned Ministry/Department desires to consider acceptance of the judicial order, the matter should be invariably referred to the Department of Legal Affairs and the Department of Personnel and Training as per this Department's O.M.No.28027/9/99-Estt(A) dated May 1, 2000, which says that whenever there is a court order against the Government of India, pertaining to service matters, no such order shall be implemented by the concerned Ministry/Department without first referring the matter to the Department of Legal Affairs and to the Department of Personnel and Training for advice.
The learned counsel for the respondents averred that Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judicial pronouncements have observed that the regularization of ad-hoc services is untenable. He places reliance on the order of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11961-11963 of 1996 (Santosh Kumar &Ors - Vs- G.R. Chawla &Ors), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 10.09.2003 held that,
"In the present case rule of the seniority clearly provides that seniority in any category or cadre post shall be determined from the date of the order of substantive appointment. The posts of Drug Inspectors was within the purview of Public Service Commission. But, ad-hoc appointments were made. The said ad-hoc appointments cannot be deemed to be the substantive appointments. It were in the nature of stop gap or fortuitous appointments, hence the period during which ad-hoc appointees worked, cannot be counted for the purposes of seniority."
In the light of above, the learned counsel for the respondents asserts that the applicant’s request for regularizing his previous ad-hoc service is not tenable due to the constraints of the department since the applicant was appointed to the post of PST (ad-hoc) with clear stipulations that this engagement is purely on ad-hoc basis and the applicant will not have any claim for regular appointment by virtue of this ad-hoc appointment against the post.
The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that pursuant to the Order passed by this Tribunal dated 09.01.2024 directing the authorities for considering his representation, his representation has been considered by the competent authority in terms of all the appointment orders issued to him, which was on adhoc basis in the post of PST. Vide Speaking Order dated 25.10.2024, his claim after detailed consideration has been rejected by the authorities. In the light of above, the OA has not merit and should be dismissed.
Heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
It would be useful to have a look at the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court &Hon’ble High Courtson the issue of regularization of contract workers/temporary employees, over last few years. The relevant portions of some of them are reproduced below for convenience.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of regularization in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka &ors. v. Umadevi&ors.reported in Civil Appeal No. 3595-3612 of 1999 dated 10.04.2006 has held as under:-
“1.Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our Constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark, and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals. Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme.
2.…………… But, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a particular point of time, are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations. Regular appointment must be the rule.
3…………….. The Union, the States, their departments and instrumentalities have resorted to irregular appointments, especially in the lower rungs of the service, without reference to the duty to ensure a proper appointment procedure through the Public Service Commission or otherwise as per the rules adopted and to permit these irregular appointees or those appointed on contract or on daily wages, to continue year after year, thus, keeping out those who are qualified to apply for the post concerned and depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the post.
4.……………….. The question arises, equity to whom? Equity for the handful of people who have approached the Court with a claim, or equity for the teeming millions of this country seeking employment and seeking a fair opportunity for competing for employment? When one side of the coin is considered, the other side of the coin, has also to be considered and the way open to any court of law or justice, is to adhere to the law as laid down by the Constitution and not to make directions, which at times, even if do not run counter to the Constitutional scheme, certainly tend to water down the Constitutional requirements…………
5………………………….If rules have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution, then the Government can make appointments only in accordance with the rules. The State is meant to be a model employer. The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 was enacted to ensure equal opportunity for employment seekers. Though this Act may not oblige an employer to employ only those persons who have been sponsored by employment exchanges, it places an obligation on the employer to notify the vacancies that may arise in the various departments and for filling up of those vacancies, based on a procedure………………………………
6………………….. The conflict relates to the right, if any, of employees appointed by the State or by its instrumentalities on a temporary basis or on daily wages or casually, to approach the High Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing that they be made permanent in appropriate posts, the work of which they were otherwise doing. The claim is essentially based on the fact that they having continued in employment or engaged in the work for a significant length of time, they are entitled to be absorbed in the posts in which they had worked in the department concerned or the authority concerned. There are also more ambitious claims that even if they were not working against a sanctioned post, even if they do not possess the requisite qualification, even if they were not appointed in terms of the procedure prescribed for appointment, and had only recently been engaged, they are entitled to continue and should be directed to be absorbed.
7………………………. The High Court also issued a command to the State to consider their cases for regularization within a period of four months from the date of receipt of that order. The High Court seems to have proceeded on the basis that, whether they were appointed before 01.07.1984, a situation covered by the decision of this Court in Dharwad District Public Works Department vs. State of Karnataka (1990 (1) SCR 544) and the scheme framed pursuant to the direction thereunder, or subsequently, since they have worked for a period of 10 years, they were entitled to equal pay for equal work from the very inception of their engagement on daily wages and were also entitled to be considered for regularization in their posts.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
10.In addition to the equality clause represented by Article 14 of the Constitution, Article 16 has specifically provided for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment…………………………. The States have made Acts, Rules or Regulations for implementing the above constitutional guarantees and any recruitment to the service in the State or in the Union is governed by such Acts, Rules and Regulations. The Constitution does not envisage any employment outside this constitutional scheme and without following the requirements set down therein.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
17.One aspect arises. Obviously, the State is also controlled by economic considerations and financial implications of any public employment. The viability of the department or the instrumentality or of the project is also of equal concern for the State. The State works out the scheme taking into consideration the financial implications and the economic aspects. Can the court impose on the State a financial burden of this nature by insisting on regularization or permanence in employment, when those employed temporarily are not needed permanently or regularly?....................The burden may become so heavy by such a direction that the undertaking itself may collapse under its own weight…..
18.The Decision in DharwadDistt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association &ors. Vs. State of Karnataka &Ors. (1990 (1) SCR 544) dealt with a scheme framed by the State of Karnataka, though at the instance of the court. The scheme was essentially relating to the application of the concept of equal pay for equal work…………………………..
19.…….In Dharwad case, this Court was actually dealing with the question of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and had directed the State of Karnataka to frame a scheme in that behalf.
……………….Therefore, unduly burdening the State for implementing the constitutional obligation forthwith would create problems the State may not be able to stand. We have, therefore, made our directions with judicious restraint with the hope and trust that both parties would appreciate and understand the situation. ………
…………With respect, it appears to us that the question whether the jettisoning of the constitutional scheme of appointment can be approved, was not considered or decided. The distinction emphasized in R.N. NANJUNDAPPA Vs T. THIMMIAH & ANR. (supra), was also not kept in mind. The Court appears to have been dealing with a scheme for 'equal pay for equal work' and in the process, without an actual discussion of the question, had approved a scheme put forward by the State, prepared obviously at the direction of the Court, to permanent absorption of such daily rated workers. With respect to the learned judges, decision cannot be said to lay down any law, that all those engaged on daily wages casually, temporarily, or when no sanctioned post or vacancy existed and without following the rules of selection, should be absorbed or made permanent though not at a stretch, but gradually. If that were the ratio, with respect, we have to disagree with it.
20.………….We may now consider, State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh and Others (1992) 3 SCR 826). This Court then concluded in paragraphs 45 to 50:
"The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified run counter to the reservation policy of the State "
………………With respect, the direction made in paragraph 50 of Piara Singh (supra) are to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in paragraph 45 therein. With great respect, it appears to us that the last of the directions clearlyruns counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision. Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad hoc, temporary or casual employees engaged without following the regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent.
22.In Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Pushpa Srivastava (Set) (1992 (3) SCR 712), this Court held that since the appointment was on purely contractualand ad hoc basis on consolidated pay for a fixed period and terminable without notice, when the appointment came to an end by efflux of time, the appointee had no right to continue in the post and to claim regularization in-service in the absence of any rule providing for regularization after the period of service.
…………….This Court stated that the view they were taking was the only view possible and set aside the judgment of the High Court which had given relief to the appointee.
24………..In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma (1996 (1) SCR 972), a three Judge Bench of this Court held that a person appointed on daily wage basis was not an appointee to a post according to Rules.
Their Lordships cautioned that if directions are given to re-engage such persons in any other work or appoint them against existing vacancies, "the judicial process would become another mode of recruitment dehors the rules."
In Ashwani Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar and others (1996 Supp. (10) SCR 120), this Court was considering the validity of confirmation of the irregularly employed.
…………. But if the initial entry itself is unauthorized and is not against any sanch vacancy, question of regularizing the incumbent on such a non-existing vacancy wo never survive for consideration and even if such purported regularization or confirmation is given it would be an exercise in futility."
This This Court further stated:
……………..But this would require one precondition that the initial entry of such an employee must be made against an available sanctioned vacancy by following the rules and regulations governing such entry. The second type of situation in which the question of regularization may arise would be when the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy is found to have suffered from some flaw in the procedural exercise though the person appointing is competent to effect such initial recruitment and has otherwise followed due procedure for such recruitment.
The Court further stated :
“On the contrary all efforts were made to bypass the recruitment procedure known to law which resulted in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, both at the initial stage as well as at the stage of confirmation of these illegal entrants. The so called regularizations and confirmations could not be relied on as shields to cover up initial illegal and void actions or to perpetuate the corrupt methods by which these 6000 initial entrants were drafted in the scheme."
…………………The cases directing regularization have mainly proceeded on the basis that having permitted the employee to work for some period, he should be absorbed, without really laying down any law to that effect, after discussing the constitutional scheme for public employment.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
27.In A. Umarani Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others (2004 (7) SCC 112), a three judgebench made a survey of the authorities and held that when appointments were made incontravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules framed thereunder and byignoring essential qualifications, the appointments would be illegal and cannot be regularized by theState…….
28.……………….This Court also held that regularization is not and cannot be a mode of recruitmentby any State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or any body or authoritygoverned by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Regularization furthermore cannot givepermanence to an employee whose services are ad hoc in nature. It was also held that the fact thatsome persons had been working for a long time would not mean that they had acquired a right forregularization.
This Court quotedwith approval the observations of Farewell, L.J. in Latham vs. Richard Johnson & Nephew Ltd.(1913 (1) KB 398)"
"We must be very careful not to allow our sympathy with the infant plaintiff to affectour judgment. Sentiment is a dangerous will o' the wisp to take as a guide in thesearch for legal principles."
29.………..in this context. In State of U.P. vs. NirajAwasthi and others (2006 (1)SCC 667) this Court after referring to a number of prior decisions held that there was no power inthe State under Art. 162 of the Constitution of India to make appointments and even if there was anySecretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vsUmadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006such power, no appointment could be made in contravention of statutory rules. This Court also heldthat past alleged regularisation or appointment does not connote entitlement to furtherregularization or appointment. It was further held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to frame ascheme by itself or direct the framing of a scheme for regularization. This view was reiterated inState of Karnataka vs. KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association (JT 2006 (1) SC 84).
31.……There have been decisions which have taken the cue from the Dharwad (supra) case and given directions fro regularization, absorption or making permanent, employees engaged or appointed without following the due process or the rules for appointment. ……………..
……But on a survey of authorities, the predominant view is seen to be that suchappointments did not confer any right on the appointees and that the Court cannot direct theirabsorption or regularization or re-engagement or making them permanent.
33…………. 7. Inasmuch as public employment always gave a certain status and power --- it hasalways been the repository of State power ---besides the means of livelihood, specialcare was taken to declare equality of opportunity in the matter of public employmentby Article 16. Clause (1), expressly declares that in the matter of public employmentor appointment to any office under the state, citizens of this country shall have equalopportunity while clause (2) declares that no citizen shall be discriminated in the saidmatter on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth,Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vsUmadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006residence or any of them.
34.…………Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of ourConstitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly bedisabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporaryemployee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, hewould not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strengthof such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process ofselection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitmentat the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of adhoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courtsacting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions forabsorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was maderegularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme…
36…….…..While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement eithertemporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts theemployment with eyes open. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain -- not at armslength -- since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihoodand accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison theconstitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily orcasually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will becreating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible…….. After all, innumerable citizens of our vastcountry are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporaryemployment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one hasto proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and theconsequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the personconcerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real senseof the term……….. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just todiscontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took itup, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for publicemployment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equalityof opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Xxxxxxxxx
39……………………..There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages ortemporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As hasbeen held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointmentcould be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on dailywages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbedin service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. Thearguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled……….Moreover, accepting an argument of this nature would mean that the State would be permitted toperpetuate an illegality in the matter of public employment and that would be a negation of theconstitutional scheme adopted by us, the people of India. It is therefore not possible to accept theargument that there must be a direction to make permanent all the persons employed on dailywages.
43.Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they approach the court, is theissue of a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorbthem in permanent service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises whethera mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer tothe decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. RaiShivendraBahadur Vs. TheGoverning Body of the Nalanda College [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144]. That case arose out of a refusal topromote the writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a college. This Court held that in order that amandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statuteimposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute orrule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour ofthe employees directing the government to make them permanent since the employees cannot showthat they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legalduty to make them permanent.
44.……… Inthat context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or oftribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacantsanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagersare being now employed…………
45.……… It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision,or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of theirstatus as precedents.
46………..In view of our conclusion, that Courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside thatpart of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases forregularization.”
In the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India &Ors. In SLP (C ) No. 5580 of 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:
“ 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
28.In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:
i.The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii.The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits.”
In the case of Santosh Kumar & Others vs. G. R. Chawla & Others in Civil Appeal No. 11961-11963 of 1996, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld the judgment of the Hon’ble High court of U.P. In this case, initially the Hon’ble High Court of U.P. held as follows:
“…We hold that the inter se seniority of all the Inspectors of Drugs, whether promotes or direct selected by the Public Commission deserved to be determined in accordance with the merit prepared by the Public Service Commission. As far as those Drugs Inspectors who either did not appear before Public Service Commission or appeared but failed to be selected and whose services where regularized by the State Government would be placed below the persons selected by Public Service Commission in accordance with the Rule 7 of the Regularisation Rules.”
The Hon’ble High Court of U.P. further stated that :
“……Rule- 7 of the U.P. Regularisation of Adhoc appointment (on posts within the purview of Public Services Commission) Rules, 1979 clearly indicates that a person appointed under these rules shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of order of appointment after selection in accordance with these rules and shall in all cases….”
xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
“In the present case rule of the seniority clearly provides that seniority in any category or cadre post shall be determined from the date of the order of substantive appointment. The posts of Drug Inspectors was within the purview of Public Service Commission. But, ad-hoc appointments were made. The said ad-hoc appointments cannot be deemed to be the substantive appointments. It were in the nature of stop gap or fortuitous appointments, hence the period during which ad-hoc appointees worked, cannot be counted for the purposes of seniority.”
Xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“After recording the finding, the High Court concluded that the inter se seniority of all the Inspectors of Drugs whether promotes or direct selectees by the PSC deserved to be determined in accordance with the merit prepared by the PSC. In this regard, the High Court has issued further directions with reference to Rule 7 of the Regularisation Rules.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of U.P. and which had clearly stated that the adhoc appointments cannot be deemed to be substantive appointments and the period during which adhoc appointees worked could not becounted for the purposes of seniority.
The case of SukhenduBhattacharjee vs. The State of Assam in Civil Appeal No.4514 of 2025 relates to the regularization of services of Workcharged and Muster Roll Workers of different Govt. department of the State of Assam. The Govt. of Assam had carried out the regularization of around 30 thousands Workcharged and Muster Roll Workers who were engaged by different State Govt. department prior to 01.04.1993 on long term basis. However, the same was denied despite repeated assurances by the State Govt., with respect to a large number of similarly situated employees. In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court had passed the following directions:
“I. The appellants shall be treated as regularised in service in terms of the Cabinet decision dated 22nd July, 2005 and from the date on which similarly placed 30,000 employees were given benefit of the said Cabinet decision.
II. The State of Assam shall identify and verify the eligible appellants and, where necessary, create supernumerary posts to facilitate their regularization.
III. Upon regularization, the appellants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including fixation of pay in the regular scale, continuity of service, and all applicable pensionary and post- retiral benefits in the same terms, as were extended to similarly situated 30,000 employees.
IV. In case of retired appellants, they shall be granted notional regularization with consequential monetary benefits and arrears from the relevant date until their superannuation for the purpose of recalculating pension, gratuity, and terminal dues.
V. In case of deceased appellants, arrears and other benefits shall be released to their legal heirs in accordance with law.
VI. The entire exercise, including the calculation and payment of all financial arrears, shall be completed within a period of one year from the date of this judgment.
VII. We make it clear that the benefit of the above directions shall only be applicable to the appellants who were working in the departments of the State before the cut-off date prescribed in Cabinet decision dated 22nd July, 2005 i.e. before 1st April, 1993.”
From above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is very clear that regularizationwas permitted only from the date of substantive appointment by the Hon’ble Apex Court and not from the date of joining the organization on adhoc basis (which was before 01.04.1993).
Subsequently, similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India, in the case of Madan Singh & others vs. State of Haryana & Others in Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024. The relevant portions of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this case are stated as follows:
“19.Much emphasis has been placed on the aspect that despite the policy of regularisation being required to be undertaken as an "one time measure" as enunciated in paragraph 44 of the decision in Umadevi (supra), the State Government sought to undertake this exercise of regularisation belatedly and in a perpetual manner. In this regard, we may usefully refer to observations of this Court in M L Kesari (supra) wherein this aspect has been clarified. In paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said decision, it has been held as under:
"5.It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i)The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii)The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“………..The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure."
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“25.Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 31.05.2018 stands partly modified as under:
(a)It is held that Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 are valid and the judgment of the High Court to the extent it holds otherwise is set aside. The intervenors who are similarly situated and entitled to the benefit of the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 shall also be entitled to the reliefs flowing from such declaration, subject to verification by the competent authority.”
From the above judgment, it is also very clear that even though the Hon’ble Apex Court of India approved the notification of the Govt. regarding regularization, the same was done only with respect for those who has completed 10 years of service and had requisite qualification and were taken against duly sanctioned posts.
The fact and circumstances, in the case of Dharam Singh vs. State of U.P. are also very similar. Briefly speaking, the appellants were engaged by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992. When the matter finally reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Court came to the conclusion that duties performed by the appellants were perennial in nature and the nature of work was continuous and integral and eventually granted them regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 which was the date of which Hon’ble High Court had directed the Commission and the State to take a decision on regular sanctioned post for the appellants. Even in this case, even though the appellants were taken as daily wages on adhoc appointment between 1989 and 1992 their regularization was upheld with effect from 24.04.2002 and not from the date of their original appointment on adhoc basis.
In the case of Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024, it is seen that the appellants were engaged as Gardeners (Malis) by the Horticulture Department in 1998 and were terminated orally in 2005. After the case had been dealt with by the Labour Court and the Hon’ble High Court of U.P. The Hon’bleSupreme Court came to the conclusion that since there was no evidence of contractual hiring and the appellants were being paid wages directly by the Horticulture Department, there was a clear employer-employee relationship. The Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the direction of the Hon’ble High Court which had upheld the termination and the appellant were directed to be treated as continuing in service from the date of termination. The respondent employer was also directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the appellant workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the appellant workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. Significantly, the Hon’ble Apex Court did not order regularization or had given seniority from thedate of their original appointment as daily wager in 1989 and 1992. The Hon’bleApex Court also stated as follows:
“….To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative process to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.”
Likewise in the case of Vinod Kumar &Ors. Vs. Union of India in SLP (C ) No. 22241-42 of 2016, the Hon’ble Apex Court of India had stated as follows:
“9.Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside, and the appellants are entitled to be considered for regularization in their respective posts. The respondents are directed to complete the process of regularization within 3 months from the date of service of this judgment.”
Again there is absolutely no indication in this judgment that regularization has been done from the dates of adhoc appointments on contractual basis, which happened in 1996.
In the case of BholaNath vs. the State of Jharkhand in SLP (C ) No. 30762 of 2024 , the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that the appellants were appointed against vacant and sanctioned posts, pursuant to duly issued advertisement and after undergoing the prescribed selection process. Their performance were found satisfactory. Their appointments were temporary and on contractual basis and were extended periodically from December, 2012 till February, 2023. The Hon’ble Apex Court directed the respondent State to regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. More importantly, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows:
“……….The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment…”
From the above, it cannot be inferred that the Hon’ble Apex Court extended the benefits of regularization from the date of their adhoc appointment in 2012.
It is further seen that in its order in the case of AmarkantRai vs. State of Bihar &Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2835 of 2025 decided on 13.03.2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed the authorities to regularize the services of the appellant, only with effect from 3rd January, 2002, and not from the date of his initial engagement, which was as per Office Order dated 4th June, 1983.
Likewise, the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of MAT/70/2026 in the matter of the Union of India & Others vs. Andaman SarvajanikNirmanVibhagMazdoorSangh and Others decided on 28th April, 2026 in a detailed order, inter alia, revised the clause 2(a) of the Scheme of 2023 which read as follows:
“159.For the sake of clarity, the revised Clause 2 of the 2023 Scheme shall read as follows:
2.The Casual Labourers/Daily Rated Mazdoors who fulfill the following criteria are eligible for regularization under this scheme:-
a. The Casual Labourers/Daily Rated Mazdoors should have put in at least 10 years of continuous service as on 01.08.2023 without availing the protection of any interim order of Courts or Tribunals.”
It would be appropriate now to deliberate upon the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents regarding the orders of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in WPCT No. 77/2009 & WPCT No. 78/2009. A bare perusal of these judgments cited in Annexure A/9 to the OA indicates that these judgments were based on the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble High Court in WPCT No. 25/2006 & WPCT No. 26/2006. In these two cases, the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta dealt with the issue of discrimination made against non-islanders with respect to regularization. Furthermore, these judgments of the Hon’ble High Court were passed in March, 2006 which was before the land mark judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi which was passed on 10.04.2006.
It will be also pertinent at this stage to cite certain paras of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Uma Devi which dealt upon the powers of the Hon’ble High Court under the Constitution of India. They are as follows:
3……..It has also led to persons who get employed, without the following of a regular procedure or even through the backdoor or on daily wages, approaching Courts, seeking directions to make them permanent in their posts and to prevent regular recruitment to the concerned posts. Courts have not always kept the legal aspects in mind and have occasionally even stayed the regular process of employment being set in motion and in some cases, even directed that these illegal, irregular or improper entrants be absorbed into service………………………….. Whether the wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is intended to be used for a purpose certain to defeat the concept of social justice and equal opportunity for all, subject to affirmative action in the matter of public employment as recognized by our Constitution, has to be seriously pondered over. It is time, that Courts desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such persons and from issuing directions for continuance of those who have not secured regular appointments as per procedure established. The passing of orders for continuance, tends to defeat the very Constitutional scheme of public employment. It has to be emphasized that this is not the role envisaged for High Courts in the scheme of things and their wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not intended to be used for the purpose of perpetuating illegalities, irregularities or improprieties or for scuttling the whole scheme of public employment. Its role as the sentinel and as the guardian of equal rights protection should not be forgotten.
11……………………… Nor can a court say that the Union or the State Governments do not have the right to engage persons in various capacities for a duration or until the work in a particular project is completed. Once this right of the Government is recognized and the mandate of the constitutional requirement for public employment is respected, there cannot be much difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it is ordinarily not proper for courts whether acting under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Article 32 of the Constitution, to direct absorption in permanent employment of those who have been engaged without following a due process of selection as envisaged by the constitutional scheme.
12…………. It cannot also be forgotten that it is not the role of courts to ignore, encourage or approve appointments made or engagements given outside the constitutional scheme. In effect, orders based on such sentiments or approach would result in perpetuating illegalities and in the jettisoning of the scheme of public employment adopted by us while adopting the Constitution. The approving of such acts also results in depriving many of their opportunity to compete for public employment………………..
13…………….. The bypassing of the constitutional scheme cannot be perpetuated by the passing of orders without dealing with and deciding the validity of such orders on the touchstone of constitutionality. While approaching the questions falling for our decision, it is necessary to bear this in mind and to bring about certainty in the matter of public employment. The argument on behalf of some of the respondents is that this Court having once directed regularization in the Dharwad case (supra), all those appointed temporarily at any point of time would be entitled to be regularized since otherwise it would be discrimination between those similarly situated and in that view, all appointments made on daily wages, temporarily or contractually, must be directed to be regularized. Acceptance of this argument would mean that appointments made otherwise than by a regular process of selection would become the order of the day completely jettisoning the constitutional scheme of appointment…………………………. It is necessary to put an end to uncertainty and clarify the legal position emerging from the constitutional scheme, leaving the High Courts to follow necessarily, the law thus laid down.
18……..This Court, at the threshold, stated that it should individualize justice to suit a given situation. With respect, it is not possible to accept the statement, unqualified as it appears to be. This Court is not only the constitutional court, it is also the highest court in the country, the final court of appeal. By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, what this Court lays down is the law of the land. Its decisions are binding on all the courts……………………………………….. Consistency is a virtue. Passing orders not consistent with its own decisions on law, is bound to send out confusing signals and usher in judicial chaos. Its role, therefore, is really to interpret the law and decide cases coming before it, according to law. Orders which are inconsistent with the legal conclusions arrived at by the court in the self same judgment not only create confusion but also tend to usher in arbitrariness highlighting the statement, that equity tends to vary with the Chancellor's foot.
……………. In State of Punjab and others Vs. SurinderKumary and others (1991 Suppl. (3) SCR 553), a three judge bench of this Court held that High Courts had no power, like the power available to the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and merely because the Supreme Court granted certain reliefs in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, similar orders could not be issued by the High Courts. The bench pointed out that a decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law. The temporary employees would not be entitled to rely in a Writ Petition they filed before the High Court upon an order of the Supreme Court which directs a temporary employee to be regularized in his service without assigning reasons and ask the High Court to pass an order of a similar nature. This Court noticed that the jurisdiction of the High Court while dealing with a Writ Petition was circumscribed by the limitations discussed and declared by judicial decisions and the High Court cannot transgress the limits on the basis of the whims or subjective sense of justice varying from judge to judge.
21……………..This Court set aside the directions given by the High Court for regularization of persons appointed temporarily to the post of lecturers. The Court also emphasized that specific terms on which appointments were made should be normally enforced. Of course, this decision is more on the absence of power in the High Court to pass orders against the constitutional scheme of appointment.
From above judgment of the Uma Devi by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is very clear that past alleged regularization or appointment does not connote entitlement to further regularization or appointment. It was further held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to frame a scheme by itself or direct the framing of a scheme for regularization. It is also abundantly clear that criteria of similarly situated person and protection under Article 14 can be asked for only when the matter involved a question of law.
In view of above facts and circumstances and the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in various cases as cited above, it is very clear that regularization of adhoc/temporary workers should be done sparingly, if at all, and subject to certain criteria. Furthermore, it cannot be done from the date of adhoc appointment but only from the date of substantive appointments. It cannot be overlooked that the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court are law of land and override the judgements of all the lower courts, including those of the Hon’ble High Courts and the Tribunals. Hence, certain judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, passed by the Hon’ble CAT Bench, Hon’ble High Courts cannot get precedence over the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Reverting to the facts and circumstances of the specific case, it is also seen that at the time of initial engagement of the applicant on adhoc basis, he was not having the required professional qualifications which is absolutely essential for consideration of regularization as per Supreme Court judgements cited above. He submitted his B.Ed. degree to the Directorate of Education only vide his letter dated 03.04.1999 enclosing the professional certificate of B.Ed. dated 18.06.1997. Thus, accordingly, he was appointed on regular basis to the post of PST vide order No. 3936 dated 18.08.1999 with effect from 19.05.1997 i.e. exact date after acquiring B.Ed. degree which was the required qualification.
In this regard, the DOPT OM dated 03.07.1986 and 13.08.1990 and the judgements cited above clearly specified that regularization can be done only when the concerned applicant is having requisite/prescribed qualification which has happened in the case of the applicant in 1997 only.
In view of the above, as the applicant has performed his duties for quite a long span of time, his case ought to be considered in light of the judgments cited supra of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) in MAT. 70/2026 in IA No. CAN/1/2026, CAN/2/2026 quoted supra in accordance with the scheme of 2023, to the extent, it is in conformity with the judgments of the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularization of the applicant with due consideration of the fact they he has been performing perennial nature of duties taking into consideration the 2023 Scheme in the light of the judgments cited supra. The entire exercise should be completed by the respondents within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
With the above observation and directions, the OA stand disposed of with no order as to costs.