Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 10519 OF 2020)
VIBHUTI SHANKAR PANDEY …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant who is
aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2020, by which a
Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set
aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated
27.06.2019, which had granted the benefit of regularization
to the present appellant.
3. The case of the appellant is that he was engaged in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIRMALA NEGI
Date: 2023.02.08
16:38:38 IST
Reason:
1980 as a Supervisor, on daily rated basis, under a project
of the State Water Resources Department of Madhya
2
Pradesh. The appellant sought regularization on the post of
Supervisor/Time Keeper. Admittedly, the minimum
qualification for the said post was matriculation with
mathematics; a qualification which the appellant did not
possess. These qualifications were relaxed by a
Government Circular dated 31.12.2010 and the appellant
sought his regularization on the post of Supervisor/Time
Keeper, as he was qualified for the post and had been
working on daily wage basis for a long period of time. In
fact, in another writ petition (W.P. 13997/2010) filed by the
appellant earlier, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide
order dated 02.11.2017, had given directions to the State
Government to decide the claim of the writ petitioner in
accordance with law. Vide order dated 18.06.2018 issued
by the Office of Chief Engineer, Rani Avanti Bai Lodhi
Sagar Project, the claim of the appellant for regularization
was rejected for the reasons that though the minimum
qualifications of matriculation with mathematics will not
come in the way for his regularization, but the fact remains
that the appellant was never appointed against any post.
Moreover, his appointment was never made by the
3
competent authority and there were no posts available at
the time for regularization. The appellant on the other
hand, had set his claim for regularization as persons who
were junior to him as daily wagers were regularized in the
year 1990 or even before. The learned Single Judge while
allowing the writ petition gave directions for regularization
of the appellant from the date on which his juniors were
regularized. This order was challenged by the State
Government before a Division Bench which allowed the
appeal of the State Government. The Division Bench rightly
held that the learned Single Judge has not followed the
principle of law as given by this Court in Secretary, State
1
. v. . , as initial
of Karnataka and Ors Umadevi and Ors
appointment must be done by the competent authority and
there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated
employee must be working. These two conditions were
clearly missing in the case of the present appellant. The
Division Bench of the High Court therefore has to our mind
rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated
27.06.2019.
1 (2006) 4 SCC 1
4
4. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in (supra), the appellant had
Uma Devi
no case for regularization. There is no scope, hence, for our
interference with the order of the Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court. Appeal is dismissed.
…….............................
.J.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]
.
…….............................J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
New Delhi,
February 8, 2023