Part-Time Service Without Sanctioned Post and Proper Selection Process Confers No Right to Regularization

The applicant worked as a part-time Sweeper (Safai Karmchari) at Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School since December 1997

Her salary was initially paid through the PTA fund (until 2012) and subsequently through contributions from teaching staff until July 2017

She alleged that juniors were regularized in 2017 while she was orally terminated without notice in July 2017

The respondents contended she was a daily wager, never a government employee, was not appointed through a formal recruitment process, and had not worked since 2017

1. Whether the applicant, having served as a part-time worker paid through non-governmental funds, is entitled to regularization of service

2. Whether the disengagement of a part-time daily wager without a formal inquiry violates the principles of natural justice and Article 21 in the absence of a sanctioned post

State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, which established that temporary, contractual, or casual employees appointed without following proper recruitment procedures cannot claim "legitimate expectation" for regularization

M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal v. Nanuram Yadav, which held that regularization cannot be a mode of appointment and that courts should not exercise jurisdiction based on "misplaced sympathy" for those who entered through the "back door"

Gridco Limited v. Sadananda Doloi, stating that judicial review does not extend to substituting the court's view for that of the executive unless the decision is perverse or mala fide

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she was a government employee, as her salary was paid through PTA funds and private contributions rather than the state treasury

Applying the Umadevi principle, the court reasoned that since the applicant's engagement was not based on regular selection rules and did not involve a sanctioned post, she had no legal right to permanency

The Tribunal distinguished the applicant's reliance on Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, noting that in the present case, there was no sanctioned post and the applicant had already been out of service since 2017

The court noted that because the applicant did not seek the relief of re-engagement but only regularization after being disengaged for several years, the prayer for regularization was legally untenable

The Original Application was dismissed, affirming that judicial intervention is impermissible where recruitment rules were bypassed. No costs were ordered