Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Seeking Regularization of Employment

Supreme Court states that "Regularization of employment must comply with the principles of law laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. As the appellant's case did not meet the necessary requirements, there is no scope for interference with the Division Bench's order."

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal filed by Vibhuti Shankar Pandey, who sought regularization of his employment as a Supervisor/Time Keeper in the State Water Resources Department of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant's appeal was in response to the order of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had set aside the order of the learned Single Judge granting him the benefit of regularization.

The appellant, who was engaged in 1980 as a Supervisor on a daily rated basis, did not possess the minimum qualification of matriculation with mathematics required for the said post. However, the appellant relied on a government circular dated 31.12.2010, which relaxed the minimum qualifications. He argued that his qualifications and long period of service warranted his regularization on the said post.

The Chief Engineer's office, however, rejected the appellant's claim for regularization. It stated that although the minimum qualifications would not be an impediment, the appellant was never appointed against any post, his appointment was not made by the competent authority, and there were no sanctioned posts available for regularization. The Division Bench of the High Court, upholding the appeal of the State Government, emphasized that the appellant's case did not fulfill the requirements set forth in the Supreme Court's decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, concurred with the Division Bench's decision, stating that the appellant had no case for regularization based on the principles laid down in the Umadevi case. The Court reiterated that initial appointments must be made by the competent authority, and there must be sanctioned posts on which daily rated employees can be regularized. As these conditions were not satisfied in the appellant's case, the Court found no scope for interference with the order of the Division Bench.

DATE OF DECISION: February 8, 2023

VIBHUTI SHANKAR PANDEY  vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.