Regularization claims cannot be mechanically rejected for delayed bio-data without determining responsibility for the delay.

The applicant claimed that she was engaged as a Maktab Teacher at Maktab School, Nagbal-Thanthar, on 25 March 1997, on consolidated remuneration of ₹100 per month, and continuously discharged teaching duties after the school was upgraded into a Government Primary School.

She relied on various Government orders under which Maktab/Pathshala Teachers had been regularized and alleged discriminatory denial of similar treatment.

Her claim for regularization was ultimately rejected by Government Order No. 649-Edu of 2008 dated 29 December 2008.

The respondents contended that her bio-data had not been submitted to the Administrative Department before the prescribed cut-off date of 20 April 1998, unlike the cases of other Maktab/Pathshala Teachers whose claims were considered for regularization.

They also disputed the competence of the authority that issued her initial engagement order, while acknowledging that she had been permitted to work as a Maktab Teacher and that a primary school had existed at the relevant location.

The applicant therefore sought quashing of the rejection order and regularization as a General Line Teacher with consequential benefits.

Whether the applicant’s claim for regularization could be rejected solely because her bio-data was not submitted to the Administrative Department by the cut-off date of 20 April 1998, without determining whether the delay was attributable to her or to the Department?

Whether the applicant’s engagement dated 25 March 1997, continuity of service, qualifications, and circumstances were comparable to those of Maktab/Pathshala Teachers who had been regularized under the applicable Government policy?

Whether the applicant was entitled to an immediate direction for regularization, or whether the matter required reconsideration by the competent administrative authority?

The Tribunal applied the principle that long continuation in service, by itself, does not create an indefeasible right to regularization; regularization must conform to the applicable Government policy, rules, and prescribed conditions.

A Court cannot direct regularization dehors the governing scheme merely on sympathetic considerations.

A prescribed cut-off date ordinarily cannot be ignored, but the authority must distinguish between failure to satisfy substantive eligibility conditions and failure to transmit an otherwise eligible employee’s particulars due to administrative delay.

The Tribunal further applied the Article 14 principle of equality, clarifying that parity cannot be claimed to perpetuate an illegality and that similarly situated employees must be comparable in all material respects.

The competence and legal effect of the initial engagement, actual service, qualifications, applicability of the policy, and responsibility for non-submission of bio-data had to be determined on the official record.

The Tribunal found that the respondents did not categorically deny the applicant’s association with the school or her having been permitted to work as a Maktab Teacher; their objection primarily concerned the competence of the authority issuing the engagement order.

Since the applicant’s claim had continued to be processed by departmental authorities after the cut-off date and was eventually rejected on merits, the competent authority was required to undertake a comprehensive examination rather than mechanically rely on the delayed submission of bio-data.

The Tribunal held that it was necessary to verify the genuineness and legal character of the engagement, the actual continuity of service, the applicant’s qualifications, the applicable regularization policy, the circumstances responsible for non-submission of her bio-data, and the comparability of the employees who had allegedly received regularization.

Because these matters involved disputed factual and administrative questions, the Tribunal declined to grant a positive mandamus for immediate regularization, but held that outright dismissal would also be unjustified.

The competent authority in the School Education Department was directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim for regularization/absorption as a Maktab Teacher/General Line Teacher in accordance with the applicable policy and rules, specifically examining her engagement, continuity of service, qualifications, responsibility for the delayed submission of bio-data, and parity with the regularized employees relied upon by her.

If the applicant was found similarly situated and the delay was not attributable to her, she was to receive similar treatment in accordance with law.

The Tribunal clarified that the order did not mandate automatic regularization and directed that a reasoned and speaking order be passed and communicated within three months from receipt of the certified judgment.

No order as to costs was made.