### Entitlement to Group-C Regularization Based on Parity and Educational Qualification Despite Absence of Prior No-Objection Certificate

The petitioner was engaged as a Casual Worker under the PWD establishment on March 12, 1992.

She passed her Madhyamik (Secondary) examination in 1997.

Pursuant to the Government’s 2008 policy to regularize workers who completed 10 years of service by March 31, 2008, the petitioner was regularized as a "Peon" (Group-D) effective January 1, 2008.

The petitioner sought regularization in a Group-C post, citing her educational qualifications and parity with a colleague, Shibu Deb, and others who were granted Group-C status despite initially being Madhyamik-failed at the time of engagement.

The State resisted the claim, arguing that the petitioner lacked a "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) for her 1997 examination, that the 2008 regularization policy had been repealed in 2018, and that her case differed from Shibu Deb's.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization in a Group-C post effective from the date of her initial regularization in Group-D (01.01.2008) based on parity with similarly situated employees.

Whether the lack of a "No Objection Certificate" for appearing in the Madhyamik examination or the subsequent repeal of regularization schemes in 2018 bars the petitioner's claim.

The court primarily relied on the Government Memorandum No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated September 1, 2008, which governed the regularization of Casual/DRW workers upon completion of 10 years.

It also considered Article 14 of the Constitution regarding the principle of equality and non-discrimination in state action.

The court referenced judicial precedents regarding "negative equality," including *Kerala State Electricity Board v. Sharat Chandran P.* and *State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati*, which establish that Article 14 is a positive concept meant to ensure equal treatment for similarly situated persons with legal rights.

The court found that the petitioner’s situation was materially identical to Shibu Deb, Anima Debnath, and Aparajita Bhowmik, all of whom were regularized in Group-C posts after qualifying the Madhyamik exam despite initial deficiencies.

The court rejected the State’s contention regarding the absence of an NOC, holding that since the petitioner was a daily-rated casual worker at the time of her exam, she was under no legal obligation to obtain departmental permission.

Furthermore, the court determined that the 2018 repeal of regularization policies (Annexure-R/1) did not create an embargo on the petitioner’s claim because her right to be considered arose from her status in 2008, and the Department should not perpetuate a mistake by denying her benefits granted to peers.

The court concluded that the petitioner could not be differentiated from the cited cases and was entitled to equal treatment.

The court directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for appointment as a Group-C employee in accordance with existing rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.