Once A Committee Resolves An Issue By Majority, It Cannot Be Recalled Without Reason: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Arbitrary Denial Of Regularization Benefits

“Conditions Imposed Which Are Hit By Articles 14, 16 And 21 Cannot Be Sustained” – Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant judgment in Shyama Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others [Writ Petition No. 5855 of 2018], struck down the denial of seniority and regularization benefits to a petitioner who had been appointed prior to her juniors, but was denied equal treatment. Justice Deepak Khot, presiding over the matter, held the action of the State as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, directing the authorities to extend regularization and consequential service benefits to the petitioner at par with her juniors.

Senior Employee Denied Parity Despite Judicial Direction

The case arose from the grievance of Shyama Verma, who had been appointed as a daily rated employee on 09.04.1990. Her juniors, respondent Nos. 4 and 5, were appointed over a year later on 24.07.1991. However, the State regularized the services of respondents 4 and 5 as early as 25.02.1992, while denying the same parity to the petitioner.

The petitioner’s services were only regularized in 2008, and that too with a discriminatory Condition No. 8 in her appointment order, which denied her any right to seniority and arrears. Aggrieved, she filed WP No. 4803/2011, which was disposed of in her favour by the High Court on 30.11.2013. The Court, at that stage, had already held that the condition was unconstitutional, observing:

“According to me, such conditions can never be imposed and they are hit by Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court had directed the State to reconsider the petitioner’s representation without being fettered by the invalid condition. However, instead of complying, the State convened a second committee meeting and issued a fresh denial order dated 30.09.2015, leading to the current writ petition.

Discrimination, Colourable Exercise Of Power, And Committee Irregularity

The High Court examined whether the denial of seniority and regularization benefits to the petitioner, despite earlier judicial direction and a favorable majority committee recommendation, was constitutionally valid.

Justice Khot noted the State’s inconsistency in defending its action. On one hand, the State claimed that the private respondents were directly appointed to the regular establishment on 24.07.1991, but later stated that they were regularized through a departmental process on 25.02.1992. This contradiction, the Court observed, made the entire explanation legally untenable:

“If the respondents were appointed on regular post on 24.07.1991 then there was no requirement for the State to again reappoint them in a regular establishment through a departmental process.”

Further, the Court pointed out that there was no evidence produced by the State to support the claim that the private respondents were initially appointed on regular posts and continued as daily wagers merely due to lack of administrative sanction. The appointment order dated 25.02.1992 itself did not mention any such previous appointment.

Significantly, a committee constituted pursuant to judicial directions had, in its first meeting, resolved by majority to extend the same benefits to the petitioner. However, a second meeting was later convened, and the earlier resolution was reversed without any explanation. Justice Khot was critical of this:

“The return of the State is also silent on the point that when the committee had already resolved to give benefits to the petitioner at par with the private respondents, second meeting was called.”

On examining the minutes of the second meeting dated 09.09.2015, the Court remarked:

“It is written by some individual and thereafter, it has been corrected to be shown as the decision of the committee... Once in the earlier meeting it was resolved by the members of the committee in majority... there was no reason for recalling the meeting.”

The Court held that such a colourable exercise of power, involving the re-characterization of an individual opinion as that of a committee majority, was impermissible in law.

“Unreasonableness, Discrimination And Favouritism Pollute The Administrative Process”

The Court reinforced that all administrative decisions must adhere to the constitutional mandates of Articles 14 and 16. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Amita v. Union of India [(2005) 13 SCC 721], the Court reiterated the obligation of the State to act with fairness and equality:

“Article 14 contemplates reasonableness in State action, the absence of which would entail the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

Applying this standard, the Court found the impugned order dated 30.09.2015 devoid of any judicious reasoning and inherently discriminatory.

Quashing Of Order And Direction For Equal Treatment

The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the State to grant the petitioner the same regularization benefits as those extended to her juniors:

“Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.09.2015 is hereby quashed. The authorities are directed to extend the benefit of regularization to the petitioner at par with the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.”

This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative actions must pass the test of fairness, consistency, and non-discrimination. When a junior employee is regularized ahead of a senior without valid justification—and despite prior judicial directions to the contrary—the State’s action amounts to a constitutional violation. The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling serves as a critical reminder to public authorities: arbitrariness cloaked in bureaucratic procedures cannot override fundamental rights.

Date of Decision: 13 November 2025