Reservation of regularization slots for litigating candidates creates no parity right for other employees.

The applicants were engaged as Rehbar-e-Zirat (REZs) in 2008 and were subsequently regularized as Village Agriculture Extension Assistants (VAEAs) in Phase III with effect from 01.04.2016 under Agriculture Order No. 102/E of 2016 dated 28.05.2016.

The Government policy contemplated regularization of REZs in three phases, effective from 01.04.2014, 01.04.2015 and 01.04.2016, based on prescribed qualification weightage, the cut-off date of 31.10.2006, merit and satisfactory service.

In the Phase-II regularization order dated 26.03.2016, 42 slots were kept reserved for REZs who were litigating before the High Court.

Their earlier proceedings were disposed of by the Tribunal on 03.12.2021 with a direction to the respondents to treat the matter as a representation and pass a speaking order.

The respondents thereafter rejected the claim by order dated 12.01.2022, leading to the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the applicants acquired an enforceable right to Phase-II regularization with effect from 01.04.2015 merely because 42 slots were reserved for REZs involved in pending litigation.

Whether denial of Phase-II regularization to the applicants, while protecting the positions of the 42 litigating REZs, violated the principles of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether the applicants’ qualifications, seniority and prior proceedings justified retrospective regularization and consequential benefits, including pay and seniority.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, governing the applicants’ original application.

It applied the Government’s REZ regularization policy, under which regularization was to occur in three phases according to prescribed qualification weightage, the 31.10.2006 cut-off date, descending merit and satisfactory continuous service.

The Tribunal held that protection or reservation of posts for candidates whose claims were pending in litigation does not, by itself, create an equivalent right in favour of non-litigating candidates.

It further applied Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, observing that discrimination requires proof that similarly situated candidates satisfying the same criteria were arbitrarily treated differently.

The Tribunal also applied the principle of limited judicial review of administrative decisions, holding that the Court should not substitute its view where the authority’s decision is reasoned and directly connected with the issue raised.

The applicants had already received the benefit of the regularization policy and were placed at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 in the Phase-III list with effect from 01.04.2016.

However, they did not establish that, on the applicable merit criteria, they independently fell within the Phase-II zone or that candidates ranked below them under those criteria had been improperly regularized in Phase II.

The 42 reserved slots were not vacant posts available for general allocation; they were protected for identified REZs whose claims were sub judice, subject to the outcome of their proceedings and administrative approval.

Since the applicants were not among those litigating candidates, they were not similarly situated and could not claim parity merely from the protection granted to them.

Their acceptance of Phase-III regularization, coupled with their delayed challenge, also weakened their claim for retrospective relief.

The earlier order dated 03.12.2021 created no substantive entitlement because it only directed consideration of their representation and did not adjudicate the merits of their claim.

The rejection order was therefore found to be reasoned and legally sustainable.

No violation of Articles 14 or 16 was established, and the applicants’ qualifications, seniority and prior proceedings did not justify retrospective regularization or consequential benefits.

The Original Application was dismissed, the impugned order dated 12.01.2022 was upheld, and there was no order as to costs.