AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Examination,Year of passing,Marks obtained,Division,Percentage(%)
Xth,1968,316/500,Ist,63.20%
XIIth,1970,277/500,IInd,55.40%
B.Sc,1972,437/900,IInd,48.55%
L.LB,1975,675/1200,IInd,56.25%
L.L.M,1978,406/800,IInd,50.75%
The respondents have denied the benefit of regularization solely on the ground that in petitioner''s case there is no such direction by the tribunal.,,,,
I am unable to uphold such discriminatory decision of the respondents. This is trite law that if persons are similarly situated, a person cannot be",,,,
denied the benefit of parity merely because he did not knock the door of the court. The said practice was held to be violative of Article 14 of the,,,,
Constitution of India. In Inder Pal Yadav and others Vs. Union of India and others-1985(2) SCC 648, the Apex Court held as under :-",,,,
The scheme........There is another area where discrimination is likely to rear its ugly head. These workmen come from the lowest grade of",,,,
railway service. They can ill afford to rush to court. Their Federations have hardly been of any assistance. They had individually to collect money,,,,
and rush to court which in case of some may be beyond their reach. Therefore, some of the retrenched workmen failed to knock at the doors of",,,,
the court of justice because these doors do not open unless huge expenses are incurred. Choice in such a situation, even without crystal gazing is",,,,
between incurring expenses for a litigation with uncertain outcome and hunger from day to day. It is a Hobson''s choice. Therefore, those who",,,,
could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they",,,,
are entitled to similar treatment if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court....""",,,,
(Emphasis supplied),,,,
In the light of aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this court, the petitioner and private respondents were sailing on the same boat. They",,,,
possess similar essential qualification and, therefore, the respondents were not justified in depriving the petitioner from the fruits of regularization on",,,,
the ground that no such specific order of regularization was passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be put to a comparative,,,,
disadvantageous position qua private respondents merely on the ground that he did not get similar order from this court.,,,,
In view of the aforesaid analysis, the impugned order dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider",,,,
the claim of the petitioner and pass necessary order for regularization from the due date in accordance with law.,,,,
Petition is allowed.,,,,