Regularization denied to daily wager whose initial appointment exceeded prescribed age limits, constituting an illegal appointment.

The petitioner was appointed as a Daily Wager on December 14, 1989

He approached the High Court seeking regularization of his services from November 27, 2002, equivalent to a similarly situated employee, and requested a revision of his retiral dues as he had already retired in 2014

Following a previous court direction in W.P. No. 2306/2011, the respondents rejected his claim via an order dated August 3, 2016

The rejection was grounded on the fact that the petitioner was 35 years old at the time of appointment, exceeding the upper age limit of 33 years prescribed for State employment, thus rendering his initial appointment "illegal" and placing him in the "unqualified list"

The petitioner challenged this rejection in 2019

1. Whether the petitioner’s appointment beyond the prescribed age limit constitutes an "illegal appointment," thereby disqualifying him from regularization under the State's policy

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to retrospective regularization and consequential benefits after having retired from service in 2014

3. Whether the petition is barred by laches due to the unexplained delay in filing the challenge to the 2016 rejection order

The court primarily applied the State Government's regularization policies dated December 15, 1992, and May 16, 2007

Specifically, Clause 4.1 of the policy dated May 16, 2007, stipulates that only legal appointments are eligible for consideration for regularization; illegal appointments (those violating recruitment rules such as age limits) are ineligible

The court also referenced the circular dated September 22, 1992, which prescribed the maximum age for government employment at 33 years

The court considered the principle of "negative equity," holding that if a benefit was wrongly granted to another person (as in the case of Baldev Berman), it does not create a right for others to claim the same illegal benefit

The court found that at the time of the petitioner's appointment in 1989, his age was 35 years, which exceeded the age limit of 33 years established by the State's circulars

Consequently, the court categorized his initial entry into service as an "illegal appointment" as per the criteria in the 2007 policy

The court distinguished the precedent cited by the petitioner (W.P. No. 17113/2012), noting that in that instance, the State had failed to provide documentary evidence of an age bar, whereas in the present case, such evidence was provided

The court observed that the petitioner retired in 2014, and seeked regularization retrospectively via a petition filed in 2019 without explaining the three-year delay from the date of the impugned order (2016)

The court reasoned that since the appointment was fundamentally illegal and the petitioner had already retired, no relief could be granted

The court further held that the petition suffered from laches and that retrospective regularization after retirement was not permissible in this context

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the respondent's order of rejection dated August 3, 2016