CAUSE TITLE:
Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
DATE OF ORDER:
8th February, 2023
JUDGE(S):
Honourable Justice Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia
PARTIES:
Appellant: Vibhuti Shankar Pandey
Respondent: The State of Madhya Pradesh
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’), has reaffirmed that a daily grade employee needs to have been first recruited by an appropriate authority plus he needs to be employed in a recognized job in order to be eligible for regularisation.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Constitution of India 1949
- Article 136 – Any judgement, decision, resolution, sentence, or order in any case or matter issued or enforced by any tribunal or court in the India territory may be appealed with special leave, at the Supreme Court’s authority.
- Article 226 – states the power of High Court to issue writs
BRIEF FACTS:
- The appellant is employed as a Supervisor for a venture of the State Water Resources Department of Madhya Pradesh, Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI 1980, on a daily rate basis.
- The appellant asked for the position of supervisor/timekeeper to be regularised. It is true that the applicant lacked the matric with mathematical requirement that was the minimal requirement for the position in question. These requirements were eased by the government, and the appellant requested regularisation on the post because he had previously been eligible for it on a daily salary basis.
- In a writ petition submitted to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it had instructed the State Government to resolve the writ petitioner's claim in compliance with the law.
- Special leave petition (SLP) was filed before the bench which was against the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court.
QUESTIONS ROSE:
Whether the appointment made by the authorised authority for the competent post is necessary for the regularization of such employment?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The appellant had based his claim for regularisation on the fact that individuals who were regular wagers and junior to him had received regularisation in 1990 or earlier.
- It was also stated by the council that while granting the writ petition, the learned Single Judge provided instructions for regularising the appellant as of the day his juniors were regularised.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- It was stated by the council that the appealed against this order before a Division Bench, which approved the State Government's appeal.
- It was stated by the council that the High Court passed an order stating that because the appellant's first job did not adhere to the legal standard outlined in the Supreme Court decision of ‘Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1’, it could not be regularised.
- The claim made by the appellant is invalid. The reality is that the appellant has never been assigned to any office, even if the requirement of matric with mathematics would not prevent his regularisation. Additionally, the appropriate authorities never appointed him, as there were no open positions at the period for regularisation.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- The applicant had never been appointed to a position, the Supreme Court remarked. Additionally, the appropriate authorities never appointed him, and there were also no open positions at the period for regularisation.
- The appellant has no claim for regularisation in light of the rules established by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Uma Devi. Therefore, there is no room for us to intervene with the Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench's decision. The appeal is denied.
CONCLUSION
In the above case the order passed The Division Bench correctly concluded that the learned Single Judge had not adhered to the legal standard established by this Court in ‘Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors.1’ because the initial appointment had to be made by the appropriate party and the daily rated employee had to be employed on a sanctioned post.
The case of the current appellant blatantly lacked these two requirements. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court's Division Bench was correct to grant the appeal and reverse the ruling from June 27, 2019
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
