Regularization is impermissible for casual labourers who fail to meet the mandatory educational qualifications prescribed under a recruitment scheme.

The applicant, an SSLC-failed individual from a Scheduled Community, was appointed as a Part-Time Casual Labourer in the Central Excise Department on 31.03.1997.

In 2020, the "Part Time Casual Labourers (Regularization) Scheme CBIC-2020" was introduced following judicial interventions to regularize long-serving casual staff.

The applicant applied but was rejected via order dated 10.10.2022 because he failed to meet the mandatory educational qualification of passing SSLC/Matriculation.

After his representations were rejected (Annexure-A8), he was relieved of his duties on 16.07.2025.

The applicant challenged the termination and sought reinstatement as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS), alleging the termination contravened established precedents on regularization.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization despite not possessing the minimum educational qualification prescribed in the 2020 Scheme and Recruitment Rules.

2. Whether long and continuous service independently entitles a casual laborer to regularization when a specific one-time scheme has already found them ineligible.

Part Time Casual Labourers (Regularization) Scheme CBIC-2020, which mandates ten years of continuous service and fulfillment of educational qualifications (Matriculation/ITI) as per the Recruitment Rules for Group ‘C’ posts.

State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [2006] 4 SCC 1, which directs the framing of schemes for regularization of irregularly appointed employees who have worked for over ten years, provided they are qualified for the post.

Jaggo v. Union of India [2024] INSC 1034, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad [2025], and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. [2025] INSC 998, which emphasize that long service can create a right to regularization to prevent the exploitation of casual labor.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant does not challenge the validity of the 2020 Scheme or its specific educational stay requirements; rather, he seeks relief despite them.

While the applicant relied on Jaggo and Dharam Singh to argue that long service overrides procedural hurdles, the Tribunal distinguished those cases, noting that a formal scheme (CBIC-2020) was indeed framed and implemented by the respondents in compliance with Umadevi.

The court reasoned that since Group 'D' posts were upgraded to Group 'C', the minimum requirement of an SSLC pass became a statutory necessity under the Recruitment Rules.

The Tribunal held that "there cannot be regularization when the applicant is found to be ineligible under the scheme".

The applicant's failure to meet the educational criteria is a substantive bar that cannot be bypassed simply by virtue of length of service.

The court found no illegality in Annexures A8 and A9. The Original Application was dismissed, and the interim order protecting the applicant's work was vacated.