Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1477
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 428 OF 2022
RATNANK MISHRA & OTHERS … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD THROUGH
REGISTRAR GENERAL …RESPONDENT
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2022
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA … APPELLANT
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD THROUGH
REGISTRAR GENERAL …RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2022
AJAY KUMAR MISHRA & OTHERS … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD THROUGH
REGISTRAR GENERAL …RESPONDENT
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.12.19
16:45:51 IST
Reason:
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 1 of 29
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 431 OF 2022
DHARMENDRA SINGH RATHORE … APPELLANT
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD THROUGH
REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
J.K. Maheshwari J.
1. These appeals call into question the correctness of the judgments
1 2
dated 14.10.2015 and 30.10.2015 rendered by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirming the decision of
3
the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2015 and setting aside
4
judgment dated 31.10.2014 , respectively. The controversy arises
because of non-regularization or non-confirmation of the employees
(hereinafter referred to as “Appellants” ) on the post of Operator-cum-
Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks by the Respondent i.e.,
The High Court of Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "High Court ”),
1
In Special Appeal No. 411 of 2015; Special Appeal No. 412 of 2015; Special Appeal No. 410 of
2015
2
In Special Appeal No. 1109 of 2014
3
In Service Single No. 5512 of 2013; Service Single No. 5287 of 2013; Service Single No. 5288 of
2013
4
In Writ – A No. 55500 of 2013
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 2 of 29
despite serval similarly situated employees having been regularized
from time to time.
2.
The appointments in the High Court are governed by the
Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and
Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ 1976 Rules ’) framed
under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. The Appellants were
appointed by the then Chief Justice of the High Court while exercising
the powers conferred to him under Rule 8(a)(i) read with Rules 41 and
45 of the 1976 Rules.
3. The controversy in the present case is that while numerous
similarly situated employees appointed in similar fashion have been
regularized from time to time, the Appellants contend that they were
singled out without there being any reasonable justification and
denied regularization. In this background, the power of the Chief
Justice of the High Court to make recruitment to Class III posts flows
from Rules 8 (a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules, which are relevant
and are reproduced as thus:
“ 8. Sources of recruitment to class III post – The sources
of recruitment to the various class III posts in the
establishment shall be as follows:
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 3 of 29
(a)(i) Routine Grade Clerks – (I) By direct recruitment through
competitive examination conducted by the appointing
authority or in any manner so directed by Chief Justice.”
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ 41. Residuary powers. – Nothing in these rules shall be
deemed to affect the power of the Chief Justice to make such
orders, from time to time, as he may deem fit in regard to all
matters, incidental or ancillary to these rules, not specifically
provided for herein or in regard to matters as have not been
sufficiently provided for:
Provided that if any such order relates to salaries,
allowances, leave or pension, the same shall be made with the
approval of the Governor of U.P.”
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ 45. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the
Chief Justice shall have the power to make such orders, as he
may consider fit, in respect of recruitment, promotion,
confirmation or any other matter.”
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The Appellants were engaged by the Respondent on ad-hoc basis
as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistant / Routine Grade Clerk, which
are Class-III posts in the High Court. These appointments were made
under the orders of the Chief Justice in exercise of powers under Rule
8(1)(a) read with 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules. A tabulated list of the
Appellants along with their respective dates of appointment is
produced hereafter for reference:
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 4 of 29
S.
No.
Civil Appeal Name of the Appellant Date of
Appointment
1.
Civil Appeal No.
Ratnank Mishra 08.12.2004
2. Md. Faiq Naseem
08.12.2004
Siddiqui
428 of 2022
3. Saif Husain 08.12.2004
4. Ram Prakash Yadav 08.12.2004
5. Ashish Kumar Srivastav 08.12.2004
6. Civil Appeal No.
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma 27.05.2005
429 of 2022
7.
Civil Appeal No.
Ajay Kumar Mishra 27.10.2005
8. Affan Ahmad 27.10.2005
9. Ashutosh Shukla 27.10.2005
10. Rafeeq Ahmad 27.10.2005
11. Pawan Kumar Tiwari 27.10.2005
12. Rohit Kumar Singh 27.10.2005
13. Mahendra Misra 23.11.2005
14. Pravesh Kumar 23.11.2005
15. Ajeet Dixit 23.11.2005
16. Civil Appeal No.
430 of 2022
Dharmendra Singh
01.09.2004
431 of 2022
Rathore
Meanwhile, other similarly placed persons were also appointed on the
same post from time to time in exercise of the power vested with the
Chief Justice of the High Court under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the
1976 Rules, without conducting regular process of recruitment as
prescribed in the Rules.
5. The controversy with respect to appointment and regularization
of persons appointed on post of Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistant/
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 5 of 29
Routine Grade Clerk in the High Court in exercise of powers conferred
upon Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of 1976 Rules was
already boiling up even prior to the present dispute. One such dispute
culminated in the Division Bench decision dated 20.09.2011 passed
by the High Court in Special Appeal No. 563 of 2008 which, although,
is not the subject matter of this dispute, it may have material bearing
on the present case. Some appointments to the post of ‘Routine Grade
Clerk’ made by the Chief Justice of the High Court in exercise of
powers under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules, were
challenged by a regular recruitment candidate in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 45922/2004 before the Single Judge.
6. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition vide
judgment dated 27.07.2007, inter alia observing that no relief can be
granted to the candidate therein, since he had become ineligible for
the relevant post after amendment in the service rules, and since the
post of ‘Routine Grade Clerk’ was declared a dying cadre and merged
into the post of ‘Assistant Review Officer’. Nonetheless, learned Single
Judge, relied on the judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 6 of 29
5
v. Umadevi and made an observation that appointments made by
the Chief Justice of the High Court in exercise of powers under Rules
8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules will be subject to regular
appointment under Rule 8 of the said rules and the appointees will
not be confirmed and regularized.
7. The observations made by the learned Single Judge were
challenged by the High Court and the appointees under Rules 8(a)(i),
41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules in Special Appeal No. 563/2008 before
the Division Bench, which then passed the judgment on 20.09.2011.
The Division Bench essentially held that appointments made in
exercise of powers under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules
cannot be said to be illegal or irregular. It was held that the Chief
Justice was the best person to judge the need of the institution and
any appointment made by him cannot be doubted. Thereafter, the
Division Bench issued directions to the Registrar General to take
appropriate steps with regard to confirmation / regularization and
consequential relief of the employees thereunder.
5
(2006) 4 SCC 1.
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 7 of 29
8. Pursuant to the judgment discussed above, dated 20.09.2011, the
Chief Justice of the High Court on the administrative side, constituted
a Committee consisting of two Judges of the High Court (hereinafter
referred to as “Committee” ) vide order dated 30.09.2011. The
objective of the Committee was to examine the cases of appointees
serving as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade
Clerks and to determine their eligibility for regularization.
9. In the interregnum, the Chief Justice on receiving various
representations of Class – III employees seeking regularization,
referred them to the Committee. In its report dated 31.05.2012, the
Committee made recommendation for regularization of some
employees, and rejected the claim of others, including the Appellants
herein. The report of the Committee, dated 31.05.2012, is relevant,
therefore it is reproduced as under:
“ REPORT
Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 30.09.2011 had
referred the matter for consideration of confirmation /
regularization and for grant of consequential relief according
to the judgment of Division Bench.
A representation as (sic) been made by 7 persons namely
S/Sri Barmeshwar Pandey (EMP No. 7158), Tej Singh (EMP
No. 7159), Anand Pal Singh (EMP No. 7160), Ajeet Kumar
Srivastava (EMP No. 7163), Santosh Kumar Tiwari (EMP No.
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 8 of 29
5900), Abhishek (EMP No. 7163) and Sharad Kumar (EMP No.
7164) (hereinafter referred to as the Representationists)
requesting the Registrar General to pass appropriate orders as
directed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in its judgement dated
20.09.2011 passed in Special Appeal No. 1152 of 2007.
It appears that all the 7 Representationists were appointed as
ad hoc Routine Grade Clerks vide office order dated
01.09.2004 with a condition that they shall be permitted to
appear in the examination / test to be held for direct
recruitment of Routine Grade Clerks and, their appointment
shall be regularized and confirmed only after they are selected
in that examination/test. The appointment of these
Representationists was challenged by means of Writ Petition
No. 495922 of 2044, (sic) Devendra Kumar Pandey versus
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others. The
Writ Petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide
judgment and order dated 27.07.2007. The learned Single
Judge was pleased to make the following observations:
“Following the observations of the Constitutional
Bench of the Apex Court, the Court expects that all
appointments made by Hon’ble The Chief Justice in
exercise of his powers under Rule 41 and 45 of the
High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service
and Conduct) Rules, 1976, will be subject to the
regular selection by direct recruitment in accordance
with Rule 8 of these Rules and that these appointees
will not be confirmed and regularized.”
The Representationists as also the High Court preferred
separate Special Appeal Nos. 1152 of 2007 and 563 of 2008.
A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated
20.09.2011 had been pleased to allow both the Special
appeals. The Division Bench had passed the following order:
“Thus, in totality, both the appeals succeed and are
allowed. The direction given by the learned Single
Judge in paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment
th
dated 27 July, 2007 following the observations of
the Supreme Court judgment in Uma Devi (supra)
stands set aside. The writ petition is treated to be
dismissed on the basis of the observations of the
Learned Single Judge himself in the earlier
paragraphs of the impugned judgment. Registrar
General of this Court is hereby directed to take
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 9 of 29
appropriate steps with regard to confirmation/
regularization and consequential benefits of the
employees hereunder.
However, no order is passed as to costs.”
The Representations have requested the Registrar General to
give effect to the order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the
Division Bench.
We may mention here that even though the Division Bench had
observed that the cadre of Routine Grade Clerk has been
declared as ‘dead cadre’ by Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide
order dated 19.10.2005 and has merged in the cadre of
Assistant Review Officer, the State Government vide order
dated 04.01.2008 had not given its consent. The pay-scale of
Assistant Review Officers and Routine Grade Clerks are entire
(sic) different. The revised pay-scale of the Routine Grade
Clerk is Rs. 5500-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs.1900
whereas, the pay-scale of Lower Division Assistant (Assistant
Review Officer) is Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of
Rs.2800. Thus, the pay-scale of the Lower Division Assistant
(Assistant Review Officer) is higher than that of the Routine
Grade Clerk.
In view of the provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution of
India, any Rule relating to salary, allowances, leave or
pension made by Hon’ble the Chief Justice require the
approval of the Governor of the State. We have also been
informed that a Review Application has been filed in the
aforesaid two Special Appeals which is pending decision.
We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that
notwithstanding anything contained in Article 229 of the
Constitution of India, the Representationists be given the
benefit of the judgement dated 20.09.2011 passed by the
Division Bench in the aforesaid two Special Appeals. As the
Division Bench has held that the condition stipulated in the
appointment letters of all the incumbents looses force and at
another place it has held that the cadre of Routine Grade Clerk
was declared as ‘dead cadre’ and merged with the cadre of
Assistant Review Officer, the Committee is of the view that
these Representationists be treated as appointed on probation
of one year under Rule 32 of the Allahabad High Court Officers
and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976
(hereinafter referred to as the High Court Rules) and confirmed
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 10 of 29
on the post on which they have been appointed after one year
from the date of appointment under Rule 33 of the High Court
Rules and they be given all consequential benefits including
promotion from the date their juniors have been promoted.
In the order it should be specifically mentioned that their
confirmation and promotions etc. shall be subject to the orders
which may be passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the
Review Application filed by the High Court.
The office has further given a list of 13 persons excluding the
7 Representationists.
The Committee finds that 6 person namely, Smt. Sushma
Singh, S.Sri. Bikas Tanu Goswami, Samyadeep Ganguly,
Sandeep Kumar Ojha, Kaushal Kishore and Indu Singh have
been appointed as Routine Grade Clerks by Hon'ble the Chief
Justice on various dates. Their appointment has been made
by Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Rule 45 of the High Court
Rules. Their appointments have not been made on, ad hoc
basis. Therefore, their initial appointment is to be treated as
appointment on probation for a period of one year in
accordance with Rule 32 of the High Court Rules and they are
entitled for being confirmed after one year under Rule 33.
The Committee, therefore, recommends that these persons be
confirmed after expiry of one year and be given all
consequential benefits including promotion from the date their
juniors have been promoted.
So far as, the remaining 7 persons namely S/Sri Dharmendra
Singh Rathor, Ram Prakash Yadav, Ratnank Mishra, Mohd.
F.N. Siddiqui, Saif Husain, Ashish Srivastava and Sanjeev
Kumar Sharma are concerned, they have been appointed as
ad hoc Routine Grade Clerks on various dates. No Rule has
been framed by the High Court for regularization of ad hoc
employees. Sub-clause (2) of Rule 40 of the High Court Rules
provide that in respect of all matters (not provided for in these
Rules) regarding the conditions of service of officers and
servants of the Court, including matters relating to their
product, control and discipline, the Rules and orders for the
time being in force and applicable to Government servants
holding corresponding posts in the Government of Uttar
Pradesh shall apply to the officers and servants of the Court
subject to such modifications, variations and exceptions, if
any, as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, specify.
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 11 of 29
Their (sic) being no other provisions for regularization of the
adhoc employees of this Court, the Rules made by the State
Government in this behalf shall apply. The State Government
has framed the U.P. regularization of Adhoc appointments (on
posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission)
Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the regularization Rules
1979). As the Hon’ble Chief Justice has not issued any order
for modifications, variations and exceptions, the aforesaid rule
in terms without any modification would apply. In the said
Regularization Rules, 1979, cut-off date provided in Rule 4(i)
th
is 30 June 1998. As all these persons have been appointed
on 02.09.2004 or thereafter, they cannot be given the benefit
of Regularization Rules, 1979.
The Committee, therefore, recommends as follows:
A. The following persons be confirmed on the post on
which they have been appointed after one year from the date
of appointment by treating their appointment on probation in
accordance with Rules 32 and 33 of the High Court Rules and
they be given all consequential benefits including promotion
from the date their juniors have been promoted.
In the order, it should be specifically mentioned that their
promotion and confirmation, etc. shall be subject to the orders
which may be passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the
Review Application filed by the High Court.
S No. Employee No. Name S/Sri
1. 7158 Barmeshwar Pandey
2. 7159 Tej Singh
3. 7160 Anand Pal Singh
4. 7161 Ajeet Kumar Shrivastava
5. 5900 Santosh Kumar Tiwari
6. 7163 Abhishek
7. 7164 Sharad Kumar
B. The following persons be confirmed after the expiry
of one year from the date of their appointment and be given all
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 12 of 29
consequential benefits including promotion from the date their
juniors have been promoted.
S No. Name S/Sri
1. Smt. Sushma Singh
2. Bikas Tanu Goswami
3. Samyadeep Ganguly
4. Sandeep Kumar Ojha
5. Kaushal Kishore
6. Indu Singh
C. The following persons have been appointed on
02.09.2004 or thereafter, therefore, they cannot be given the
benefit of Regularization Rules, 1979.
S No. Name S/Sri
1. Dharmendra Singh Rathor
2. Ram Prakash Yadav
3. Ratnank Mishra
4. Mohd. F.N. Siddiqui
5. Saif Husain
6. Ashish Srivastava
7. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
D. Their claim for regularization can be considered only
after Hon’ble the Chief Justice makes any Rule for
regularization or pass any order varying the Regularization
Rules, 1979.
Let the report be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for
passing appropriate orders.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Justice Ashok Bhushan) (Justice R.K. Agrawal)”
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 13 of 29
10. Other representations were also decided by the Committee on
different dates, relying on the said report assigning similar reasons.
In the interest of brevity, we are mentioning about, but not quoting
the other orders.
11. Thereafter, vide order of the High Court dated 10.07.2012 issued
by the Registrar General, 12 persons who were recommended by the
Committee, were regularized and confirmed on the post of Regular
Grade Clerk after one year from the date of initial appointment and
further promoted to the post of Review Officer (R.O.) on the same date.
12. Out of the employees who were not recommended by the
Committee, some of them were communicated with the order of
rejection of their representation OM No. 9514/2012 dated
vide
06.06.2012, making reference to the order of the Chief Justice dated
01.06.2012.
13. The Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 428-430 of 2022, claiming
parity with other employees insofar as regularization is concerned,
made the representation dated 18.09.2012 to the Registrar General of
the High Court. Material placed before us reflects that such
representation was rejected and vide an undated and unnumbered
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 14 of 29
communication of August 2013 purportedly signed by Deputy
Registrar (Establishment) which disposed of the same with the
following relevant observation –
“Thus, who have become over age be given relaxation in age in next
examinations provided they possess minimum qualification to
appointment.”
14. The above undated and unnumbered communication was sought
to be challenged by the Appellants in Writ Petition No. 5287 (S/S) of
2013 and Judgment dated 20.09.2011 passed in Special Appeal No.
563 of 2008 by High Court was sought to be implemented in respect
of Appellants. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition,
and the Division Bench on 14.10.2015 affirmed the same vide the
impugned judgment, directing that the Appellants, if eligible, shall be
granted age relaxation for participation in future recruitment
processes.
15. Insofar as the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 431 of 2022 is
concerned, he filed Writ-A No. 55500 of 2013 asking to quash letter
dated 02.08.2013 of Registrar General and seeking regularization. A
writ in nature of mandamus was sought commanding the Respondent
to regularize and confirm him on the post of Routine Grade Clerk. The
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 15 of 29
judgment dated 20.09.2011 passed in Special Appeal No. 563/2008
of the High Court was also relied upon in the Writ Petition, which
came to be allowed vide order dated 31.10.2014. Nonetheless, the
Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 30.10.2015 allowed
the Special Appeal No. 1109 of 2014 as preferred by the Respondent
and set aside the judgment of Single Judge.
16. In the above sequel of facts, the present appeals have been
preferred by the Appellants herein.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANTS
17. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the Appellants,
submitted that the appointments were not casual or irregular, but
traceable directly to Rule 8(a)(i) of 1976 rules, which enables
recruitment “in any manner as the Chief Justice may direct”. The
residuary powers of the Chief Justice under Rules 41 and 45 further
reinforce the validity of such appointments. Therefore, the
appointment of the Appellants was legal, duly authorized, and had
the same status as that of those persons whose services were later
regularized.
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 16 of 29
18. It was urged that the High Court had, by way of various office
orders, implemented the earlier Division Bench directions vide
judgment dated 20.09.2011 by regularizing similar persons appointed
by the Chief Justice. Failure to consider the Appellants on similar
terms constitutes glaring example of hostile discrimination, violating
Articles 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India.
19. It was finally submitted, remanding the matter at this stage, to
the High Court for reconsideration, in particular, after two decades
would result in grave injustice. Therefore, this Court ought to issue
final directions, if necessary, in exercise of the inherent powers of this
Court.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
20. Learned counsel for the Respondents, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi,
submitted with vehemence that appointments outside the competitive
channel must not be regularized and that the High Court retains the
discretion to determine its staffing patterns. It was argued that
regularization is not the right of an employee, and the administrative
authorities are entitled to regulate the staffing strength of the
institution.
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 17 of 29
21. It was urged that the Division Bench correctly held that ad-hoc
appointments do not confer entitlement of regularization and that the
direction enabling the Appellants to participate in future selections
with age relaxation was adequate remedy. It was further contended
that the Division Bench judgment dated 20.09.2011 passed by the
High Court in Special Appeal No. 563 of 2008 sought to be relied upon
by the Appellants, has been effectively overruled by a Full bench
decision of the High Court in In Re: Regularization of Class IV
6
Employees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide
judgment dated 18.09.2013. Therefore, interference in these Appeals
is not warranted.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS
22. Upon perusal of the record of the appeals and submissions made
by the learned counsels for the parties, the short question which falls
for our consideration is whether the differential treatment accorded to
similarly situated employees is sustainable in the facts of the present
case and, what relief is appropriate in the present case, if any ?
6
2013:AHC:179951-FB
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 18 of 29
23. The material placed before us during course of hearing of these
appeals establishes that numerous employees identically appointed
as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks
under the orders of the Chief Justice of the High Court in exercise of
powers under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules have been
regularized as a consequence of the Report of the Committee. From a
bare perusal of the said report, we can decipher that the Committee
has dealt with the representations of three categories of employees in
the following manner -
Category Names of the
Recommendation
of the Committee
Reason Thereof
Employees
Category A 1. Barmeshwar
These persons be
confirmed on the
post on which they
have been
appointed after
one year from the
date of
appointment on
probation in
accordance with
Rules 32 and 33 of
the High Court
Rules and they be
given all the
consequential
benefits.
The appointment letter
dated 01.09.2004
stipulates the
appointment to be ad
hoc appointment with a
condition that these
people shall be
permitted to appear in
the examination/test to
be held for direct
recruitment of Routine
Grade Clerk and their
appointment shall be
regularized and
confirmed only after
they are selected in that
examination.
Pandey
2. Tej Singh
3. Anand Pal
Singh
4. Ajeet Kumar
Srivastava
5. Santosh
Kumar Tiwari
6. Abhishek
7. Sharad
Kumar
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 19 of 29
The Judgment of
Division Bench dated
20.09.2011 notes that
once the cadre of Routine
Grade Clerk has been
declared to be ‘dead
cadre’, the stipulation of
examination loses force
and thus, these people
be treated as appointed
on probation of 1 year
under Rule 32 and 33 of
1976 Rules.
Category B 1. Smt. Sushma
These persons be
confirmed after the
expiry of one year
from the date of
their appointment
and be given all
the consequential
benefits.
These appointments
have been made by
Hon’ble the Chief
Justice under Rule 45 of
High Court Rules and
not on ad-hoc basis.
Therefore, their initial
appointment is to be
treated as appointment
on probation for a
period of one year in
accordance with Rule 32
& 33 of High Court
Rules.
Category C 1. Dharmendra
Singh
2. Bikas Tanu
Goswami
3. Samyadeep
Ganguly
4. Sandeep
Kumar Ojha
5. Kaushal
Kishore
6. Indu Singh
These people have
been appointed on
02.09.2004 or
thereafter,
therefore, they
cannot be given
the benefit of U.P.
Regularization of
Ad-hoc
Appointments (On
Posts Outside the
These appointments
have been made on ad-
hoc basis on post of
Routine Grade Clerks.
No rule has been framed
by the High Court for
Regularization of ad-hoc
employees.
Rule 40(2) of the 1976
Rules provide that in
Singh Rathor
2. Ram Prakash
Yadav
3. Ratnank
Mishra
4. Md. F.N.
Siddiqui
5. Saif Husain
6. Ashish
Srivastava
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 20 of 29
7. Sanjeev Kumar
Purview of the
Public Service
Commission)
Rules, 1979. Their
claim for
regularization can
be considered only
after Hon’ble Chief
Justice makes any
rule for
regularization or
pass any order
varying the
Regularization
Rules, 1979.
respect of all matters
(not provided for in
these rules) regarding
the conditions of service
of officers and servants
of the court, including
matters relating to
product, control and
discipline, the Rules
and orders for the time
being in force and
applicable to
Government Servants
holding corresponding
posts in the
Government of Uttar
Pradesh shall apply to
the officers and servants
of the court subject to
such modifications,
variations and
exceptions, if any, as the
Chief Justice may, from
time to time, specify.
As per the U.P.
Regularization of Ad-
hoc Appointments (On
Posts Outside the
Purview of the Public
Service Commission)
Rules, 1979, these
people have been
appointed after the cut-
off date prescribed
therein. Hence they
cannot be given the
benefit of regularization.
Sharma
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 21 of 29
24. Upon a query being put to the learned counsel for the
Respondents, she was unable to point out any reasonable distinction
and factors apart from relying on the recommendations of the
Committee. It is said that the reasons as assigned in the report of the
Committee justifies disparate treatment between the Appellants and
other similarly situated employees who were appointed through same
channel i.e. in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Chief Justice
under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of 1976 Rules. It has been contended
that the distinguishing factor is that the initial appointment of the
Respondents was ‘ ad-hoc ’ in nature, though others were not. Be that
as it may, it is clear that the channel of appointment for the persons
who have been regularized and the Respondents herein is through the
exercise of the powers vested in the Chief Justice of the High Court
under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules.
25. The distinction in treatment of Appellants (‘Category C’ employees
in table contained in paragraph 23 hereinabove) is sought to be
justified by the Respondent due to the stipulation in the appointment
order of the Appellants as ‘ ad hoc ’ and without there being any rules
for regularization of such employees, benefit of regularization cannot
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 22 of 29
be given. At this juncture, it must be said that in case of ‘Category A’
employees also, the appointments were ‘ ad-hoc ’ in nature, however in
their appointment orders, there was a stipulation for an examination
for regularization. It is not the case of the Respondent that the said
examination was ever conducted for them. Rather, the Committee
report dated 31.05.2012 found that the stipulation of an examination
has become otiose in light of the observations by the Division Bench
in its judgment dated 20.09.2011.
26. As far as ‘Category B’ employees are concerned, the reason why
they have been recommended to be regularized by the Committee is
that their appointment was not stipulated to be on ad-hoc basis.
However, it has not been disputed that ‘Category B’ employees were
also appointed in pursuance to the exercise of powers of the Chief
Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of 1976 Rules.
27. In the conspectus of these facts, the distinction sought to be
established by the Respondents between the Appellants and ‘Category
A’ employees as well as between the Appellants and ‘Category B’
employees, in our considered view is arbitrary, unreasonable and
superficial. Such arbitrariness and unreasonableness becomes
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 23 of 29
evident in light of the principles as enshrined in Article 14 of
Constitution of India. All three categories of employees i.e., Category
A, Category B, and Category C (the Appellants), were appointed
through the same channel of recruitment, namely the exercise of
powers vested in the Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41, and 45 of
the 1976 Rules sans following the regular recruitment process. Merely
because the appointment orders contained different stipulations
regarding the nature of appointment i.e. whether labeled ad-hoc or
not, or whether containing a condition for examination or not, cannot
be a rational basis for differential treatment for purpose of
regularization when the channel of such appointments is identical.
28. In the facts of this case, such a distinction solely on the basis of
stipulations as contained in the appointment letter, when the nature
of work performed is identical, violates the fundamental principle that
equals must be treated equally and persons similarly circumstanced
should not be treated differently without a rational and intelligible
differentia.
29. High Courts, being Constitutional Courts entrusted to uphold
equality and fairness, are expected to encompass such principles
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 24 of 29
within their own administrative functioning as well, and must
exemplify the standards of a model employer. Such principles are at
the risk of being undermined when discriminatory treatment is meted
out to employees similarly situated within the same establishment.
Such actions pose grave threat to the sacrosanct principles of non-
arbitrariness and reasonableness as enshrined under Articles 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution of India.
30. In light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the
Appellants have been caused grave prejudice by the Respondents, in
respect of rejection of their representations for regularization, though
similarly placed employees have been granted the same, without there
being any reasonable distinction between them.
31. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Respondent
also submitted that the post on which the Appellants were appointed,
i.e. ‘Routine Grade Clerk’, is now a dead cadre and it has merged with
the post of ‘Computer Assistants’ as per the Allahabad High Court
Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) (Amendment)
Rules, 2019 which requires computer qualifications and knowledge,
i.e. data entry, word processing, etc., therefore direction for
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 25 of 29
regularization cannot be issued. In our view, such argument is also
not fair and reasonable in particular, looking to the report of the
Committee, as a result of which, similarly situated persons were
granted the benefit of regularization after one year from their date of
their initial appointment while also extending the benefit of
promotion. Once, as per the discussion made hereinabove, it has been
found that the distinction drawn between Category A, B and C
employees is not based on any reasonable classification or intelligible
differentia, denial of similar relief to the Appellants on the pretext of
subsequent amendment in the rules, is not acceptable.
32. It has also been argued by the Respondent that the Division
Bench judgment dated 20.09.2011 has been effectively overruled by
the judgment of the full bench of the High Court in In Re:
Regularization (Supra). Without going into the merits of this
submission, there is no gainsaying that the genesis of the
discrimination which has been meted out to the Appellants can be
traced back to the report of the Committee way back in the year 2012.
The artificial distinction drawn between the Appellants and other
similarly situated employees is the discrimination which must be
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 26 of 29
weeded out in pursuit of justice. It has further been informed that the
services of the Appellants have been dispensed with by the High Court
with immediate effect vide order dated 15.09.2015 of the Registrar
General, and for this reason also it has been contended that they are
not entitled for regularization. In our considered opinion, once we
have taken a view that the judgment passed by the High Court
denying relief of regularization was not in accordance with law, such
a submission does not hold water particularly in light of the manifest
discrimination which is palpably clear and evinced from the record.
33. While we are cognizant of the fact that ordinarily regularization
is a matter best left to policy decisions of the employer, and courts
must exercise restraint in issuing directions. However, the present
case is exceptional. The Appellants have rendered over a decade of
service. Numerous similarly placed employees who were employed
through same channel of appointment have been regularized.
Therefore, with a view to render complete justice in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the present case, in our view, this is a fit case
for exercising our inherent powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India to issue final operative directions.
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 27 of 29
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS
34. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned judgments
passed by the High Court and in exercise of our inherent powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, issue the following
directions:
A. Appellants shall be reinstated on the post on which they were
working at the time of their discontinuance;
B. Respondent shall regularize the service of the Appellants
after one year from their respective dates of appointment;
C. During the period in which the Appellants remained out of
service, they would be entitled to all consequential benefits,
including seniority, promotion, pay fixation, increments,
retiral benefits (if applicable), etc., except for the salary for
the period that they have not worked;
D. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with, within a
period of 8 weeks from the date of this judgment.
35. It is made clear that the directions issued hereinabove and the
observations made in the present judgment are limited to the facts
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 28 of 29
and circumstances of these appeals, and shall in no manner or form
be treated as a precedent.
36.
Accordingly, these appeals are allowed in terms of the directions
as contained in paragraph 34. There shall be no orders as to cost.
Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of.
………………………. J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
………………………. J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 19, 2025.
Civil Appeal No. 428 of 2022, etc. Page 29 of 29