Unauthorized absence precludes regularization and does not create a vested right.

The applicant, Naresh Kumar, was appointed as a Part-Time Sweeper on January 1, 1994

He remained absent from duty from May 1, 2006, to June 30, 2010

He claims this period was medical leave and was subsequently allowed to resume duty on September 1, 2010

On February 17, 2012, a Screening Committee recommended his regularization subject to a decision on his unauthorized absence and vigilance clearance

However, the respondents declared the period from September 1, 2006, to August 31, 2010, as willful absence

Consequently, his regularization claim was rejected, and his services were dispensed with via an order dated July 18, 2018

The post of Temporary Part-Time Sweeper was also discontinued on February 28, 2018, and surrendered on April 10, 2018, with the Department of Education transitioning to outsourcing such services

Whether the respondents were justified in treating the period from September 1, 2006, to August 31, 2010, as willful/unauthorized absence and relying upon the same to deny regularization to the applicant?

Whether the recommendation of the Screening Committee dated February 17, 2012, created a vested or enforceable right in favor of the applicant for regularization?

Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement or regularization when the post of Part-Time Sweeper itself has been discontinued by the respondents?

Whether the impugned orders dated April 25, 2018, and July 18, 2018, suffer from arbitrariness or violation of principles of natural justice?

The Tribunal applied the principle that long unauthorized absence constitutes misconduct affecting an employee's service record, which can be legitimately considered for regularization (State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla [(2008) 8 SCC 469])

It further relied on the doctrine that a mere recommendation by a committee does not confer an indefeasible right unless unconditionally accepted by the competent authority (Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [1991 (3) SCC 47])

The judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] was pivotal, establishing that courts cannot direct regularization without a valid statutory scheme and lawful appointment, adhering to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

Additionally, the court cited State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal [AIR 2011 SC 1193] for the principle that temporary or part-time employees cannot claim regularization based solely on long service, especially if not against sanctioned posts

The Tribunal analyzed the issues by first noting that the applicant's claim of medical leave during the disputed period was countered by the respondents' administrative assessment of records, which declared it as willful absence

It found that the Screening Committee's recommendation for regularization was explicitly conditional on resolving the unauthorized absence issue

Applying the precedent from Shankarsan Dash, the Tribunal concluded that this conditional recommendation did not create a vested right for the applicant, as the condition was not met

Regarding regularization or reinstatement, the Tribunal observed that the post of Part-Time Sweeper had been discontinued and outsourced

Citing Umadevi and Daya Lal, it held that directing regularization in such circumstances would be legally impermissible, as there was no current scheme for regularization and the employment was not against a sanctioned post

Finally, the Tribunal found no arbitrariness or violation of natural justice in the impugned orders, as the decision was based on administrative assessment of records within the context of regularization eligibility, and the applicant failed to prove a jurisdictional error or violation of statutory rules

It concluded that the respondents were justified in treating the period from September 1, 2006, to August 31, 2010, as willful absence, given the conditional nature of the Screening Committee's recommendation

The recommendation did not confer a vested right upon the applicant

Reinstatement or regularization was not possible as the post of Part-Time Sweeper had been discontinued and outsourced, aligning with Supreme Court precedents against regularization without a valid scheme or against non-sanctioned posts

The impugned orders were not found to suffer from arbitrariness or violation of natural justice

No costs were awarded