Headline: Long-standing irregular appointments on promotional posts cannot be terminated without considering regularization against direct recruitment vacancies.

The petitioner was appointed as a Daftary (a Class IV post) on daily wages in 1985 through the Employment Exchange.

His service was regularized in 1990 following a State Government notification.

Over nearly 30 years, he received time-scale pay benefits and was promoted to Assistant Grade-III in 2015.

Following a High Court directive in a separate matter (Manshukhlal Saraf v. Arun Kumar Tiwari) to scrutinize irregular appointments, the respondents issued a show-cause notice alleging his initial 1985 appointment was irregular because the post of Daftary was reserved 100% for promotion under the 1978 Rules.

Consequently, his service was terminated in 2017.

1. Whether the termination of an employee after 28 years of regular service is legally sustainable on the grounds that the initial appointment was made via direct recruitment instead of promotion.

2. Whether the State, as a welfare entity, can revoke the regularization of a long-serving employee without considering alternative adjustments like reverting them to a direct-recruitment post.

M.P. Nagar Evam Gramin Niyojan (Chaturth Shreni) Seva Bharti Niyam, 1978, which designates the Daftary post as 100% promotional.

The landmark precedent State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which distinguishes between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments, suggesting that long-term employees (10+ years) in sanctioned posts should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure.

Directives from Manshukhlal Saraf v. Arun Kumar Tiwari (2016 (2) MPLJ 283) regarding the scrutiny of irregular appointments.

The court reasoned that while the petitioner's initial appointment on a promotional post was "irregular" under the 1978 Rules, it did not qualify as "illegal" or fraudulent.

The court observed that the petitioner never misrepresented facts or committed fraud to obtain the job; rather, the State had repeatedly vetted and rewarded his service via promotions and pay scales for nearly three decades.

Applying the principles from Uma Devi, the court found that the State acted harshly by opting for total termination rather than adjusting the petitioner's status.

The court noted that the State should have considered "regularizing the irregularity" by placing the petitioner in a direct-recruitment cadre and adjusting his emoluments, rather than depriving him of his livelihood after a respectable period of service.

The court quashed the termination order dated 18.10.2017 and directed the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s services on a post available for direct recruitment (even if in a lower scale) and ordered that any excess salary received from the promotional post be adjusted or recovered within three months.