Absence of vacant posts is not a ground to cancel permanent classification or deny regularization.

The Petitioner was initially engaged as a daily wage Bill Clerk on 01.07.1985

By an order dated 27.11.2004, he was permanently classified with effect from 11.02.1991

However, the respondents cancelled this classification on 21.07.2011, asserting it was issued by an incompetent authority without a vacant post

The Petitioner has a long history of litigation seeking regularization (dating back to 1998), including multiple directives from the State Administrative Tribunal and the High Court to consider his case

In 2016, he was conferred the status of Sthai Karmi

The Petitioner filed this writ challenging the rejection of his regularization request (dated 02.02.2021) and the 2011 cancellation order, alleging that juniors were regularized in 2008 while he was ignored

1. Whether the cancellation of the Petitioner’s permanent classification via the order dated 21.07.2011 was legally sustainable.

2. Whether the status of Sthai Karmi or the absence of a vacant post acts as an impediment to the Petitioner’s claim for regularization.

3. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to be considered for regularization on par with his juniors as per the policy framed pursuant to State of Karnataka v. Umadevi.

The Court applied the principles of regularization established in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1

It relied on Kamta Prasad v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 4018/2020) and the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1960, which establish that permanent classification does not strictly require a vacant post

Furthermore, the court applied Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray (2017) 3 SCC 436 regarding the entitlement of permanently classified employees to the minimum of the pay scale

The Court found that the cancellation of the Petitioner's permanent classification was illegal because, under the Standing Orders Rules, an employee can be classified as permanent even in the absence of a vacant post

This position was previously affirmed by a Division Bench in Kamta Prasad

Regarding regularization, the Court noted that being a "permanently classified employee" is not a condition precedent for regularization under the State's policy

It further observed that the 07.10.2016 circular specifically requires the government to consider Sthai Karmis for regularization

Factually, while the State argued the Petitioner was appointed in 1990, record evidence (including a 1994 gradation list) proved his engagement dated back to 1985, confirming his seniority over regularized juniors

The Court criticized the respondents for failing to meaningfully consider the Petitioner’s claim despite repeated judicial directions since 1998

The Court held that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of permanent classification and the minimum of the pay scale as per Ram Naresh Rawat

The respondents were directed to reconsider the Petitioner's case for regularization as per the Umadevi policy, specifically accounting for the fact that his juniors were regularized in 2008