Scheme-based honorarium workers acquire no enforceable right to regular absorption in successor State service.

The petitioners had worked as Supervisors under the Centrally sponsored Non-Formal Education Programme introduced in the erstwhile State of Bihar.

They were engaged during the 1980s through an advertised selection process and were paid fixed honoraria under the Scheme.

Pursuant to litigation before the Patna High Court, the State of Bihar formulated a scheme for absorption/regularisation of eligible Non-Formal Education Supervisors against posts of Primary Teachers or equivalent posts.

A final panel of 2,655 Supervisors, including the petitioners, was prepared; 676 of them belonged to territories that became part of Jharkhand after bifurcation on 15 November 2000.

By letter dated 23 December 2000, the Government of Bihar forwarded the names of those 676 Supervisors to the Government of Jharkhand for appropriate action.

The petitioners contended that Bihar subsequently absorbed approximately 1,863 similarly situated Supervisors in Class III posts, whereas Jharkhand did not absorb the 676 Supervisors falling within its territory.

Their earlier representations were rejected in 2003.

In proceedings arising thereafter, this Court, by judgment dated 3 March 2021, quashed the rejection and directed fresh consideration after hearing the parties.

Following a public notice and submission of representations, the competent authority again rejected the claim by order dated 16 December 2021.

The present writ petitions challenged that order and sought absorption, regularisation and consequential benefits in reliance upon the Bihar scheme and the decisions in Bishundeo Choudhary v. State of Bihar, 1995 (1) PLJR 123, and M.J.C. No. 3442 of 1997.

1. Whether the petitioners acquired an enforceable right to absorption or regularisation in the regular service of the State of Jharkhand merely because their names appeared in the panel prepared under the Bihar scheme and judicial directions had been issued before bifurcation?

2. Whether the State of Bihar’s subsequent absorption of similarly situated Supervisors created a right to equal treatment or compelled the State of Jharkhand to absorb the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution?

3. Whether the order dated 16 December 2021 rejecting the petitioners’ claim was arbitrary or illegal, notwithstanding the earlier remand for fresh consideration?

The Court applied the principle that inclusion in a panel or participation in a proposed absorption scheme does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to appointment or regularisation, particularly where the concerned persons were not appointed against sanctioned posts in the regular establishment.

The Court relied upon Bishundeo Choudhary v. State of Bihar, 1995 (1) PLJR 123, and held that the Full Bench had merely noticed the Government scheme and had not adjudicated individual claims or issued an unconditional command for permanent appointment.

The order dated 20 July 2000 in M.J.C. No. 3442 of 1997 required action in accordance with the scheme but did not guarantee appointment irrespective of sanctioned posts, service rules or the subsequent bifurcation of the State.

Relying on L.P.A. No. 421 of 2017 and L.P.A. No. 649 of 2017, the Court held that Jharkhand retained the authority to independently decide claims for adjustment, absorption or regularisation and was not bound to replicate Bihar’s policy; employees engaged under a discontinued scheme had no enforceable right to regularisation.

The Court further applied the settled principle that a remand for reconsideration requires a fresh decision in accordance with law but does not mandate a favourable outcome.

Article 226 cannot be used to compel creation of posts or induction into a regular cadre dehors the prescribed recruitment process.

The Court found that the petitioners’ engagement was under a time-bound, centrally sponsored scheme on an honorarium basis and not against substantive vacancies or sanctioned posts in the regular establishment.

Although their names appeared in the panel and Bihar had forwarded the list of 676 Supervisors to Jharkhand, the panel represented only an eligibility or administrative exercise contemplated by the scheme; it did not create a vested right to appointment in Jharkhand.

The judicial directions issued before bifurcation were understood contextually as requiring implementation of the scheme, not as guaranteeing unconditional absorption.

Jharkhand’s separate constitutional and administrative status permitted it to independently determine whether absorption was permissible in light of its own posts, cadres, recruitment framework and policy.

The Court also rejected the Article 14 argument because Bihar and Jharkhand constituted separate State establishments and the petitioners were not holders of regular sanctioned posts.

Since the earlier judgment had only required reconsideration, and the respondents had issued a public notice, received representations and passed a fresh order, the remand direction had been complied with.

Directing absorption would effectively require creation of posts or bypassing regular recruitment, which was impermissible under Article 226.

It further held that the order dated 16 December 2021 was neither arbitrary nor illegal, as it followed fresh consideration pursuant to the earlier remand.

Both writ petitions were accordingly dismissed, the prayer for absorption into Class III or Class IV posts was refused, pending interlocutory applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.