-
by sayum
18 February 2026 10:41 AM
“Once the Board of Directors approved regularization based on performance, and no qualification norms were shown to exist, the denial becomes discriminatory and unsustainable,” held the Punjab & Haryana High Court while reversing the appellate court’s refusal to grant regularization to a daily wage Chowkidar appointed in 1994.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma allowed a second appeal filed by a Class IV employee, setting aside the order of the First Appellate Court and restoring the trial court’s decree granting regularization of service. The Court held that “absence of codified qualification norms and unequal treatment vis-à-vis a junior colleague who was regularized earlier, render the denial of regularization arbitrary and violative of fairness in service law.”
“Mere Allegation of Low Qualification Cannot Defeat Right to Equal Treatment Where No Rule Exists” – Court Rejects Disqualification on Educational Grounds
“The respondents failed to prove that any qualification was ever prescribed or demanded at the time of appointment. In absence of rules, the rejection of regularization is legally untenable,” the High Court observed, sharply criticizing the first appellate court's reliance on an alleged lack of educational qualification.
The Court emphasized that Bhoop Singh’s name was approved for regularization by the Board in 1996, and his 8th-grade qualification was never disputed at the time of appointment. The retrospective denial based on qualification was manufactured, particularly when a junior employee, Mohan Lal, who was only marginally more qualified (9th pass), was regularized years earlier.
A Classic Case of Unequal Treatment and Post-Facto Disqualification
This regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC arose from a protracted litigation where Bhoop Singh, appointed as a daily wage Chowkidar on April 19, 1994, sought regularization of his service after the Bank’s Board of Directors approved it via a resolution dated May 6, 1996.
The trial court decreed his suit for declaration and injunction in 2004, granting him regularization. However, the first appellate court reversed the decree in 2007, holding that he lacked the required educational qualification – a claim unsupported by any statutory rule or policy.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma, restoring the trial court’s decree, held that the bank’s action in denying regularization while regularizing a junior colleague was “arbitrary and discriminatory.”
When the Board’s Resolution Was Clear, But Implementation Was Arbitrary
Bhoop Singh was initially appointed on daily wages on 19.04.1994. His appointment was approved by the Board of Directors on 04.05.1994 (Ex.P-2), and by another resolution dated 06.05.1996 (Ex.P-3), the Board specifically resolved to regularize his services, recognizing his “appreciable work and conduct”.
His name was included in the list of Class IV employees sent to the Managing Director in Chandigarh for regularization (Ex.P-4). Yet, while his junior colleague, Mohan Lal, appointed in December 1994, was regularized, Bhoop Singh’s case was shelved – allegedly for not being 8th pass.
Is Educational Qualification a Ground to Override Board’s Approval Without a Rule?
The First Appellate Court had reversed the decree solely on the basis that Bhoop Singh was not 8th pass, thereby ineligible.
However, the High Court held that:
“There are no rules or any document on record to show the requisite qualifications to be appointed or regularized as peon… The appellant was never asked to furnish his qualification at the time of appointment, nor was any such requirement part of the original appointment terms.”
Justice Sharma further observed: “At no stage during or after the appointment did the respondents ever raise an objection regarding the appellant’s qualification. The argument was raised only after litigation began and seems to be an afterthought to justify an otherwise unjustifiable denial.”
Discrimination Vis-à-Vis Junior Employee Was Established on Record
The appellant contended that Mohan Lal, appointed on 09.12.1994, was regularized from the date of appointment, even though no Board resolution existed in his favour, unlike the appellant.
The High Court found merit in this argument: “The committee vide its resolution had directed regularization of the appellant. The managing committee forwarded the case. Mohan Lal, who was junior and had no Board approval, was regularized and has been drawing benefits since 1994. This creates serious prejudice to the appellant and reflects unequal treatment.”
This was further confirmed by Ex.P-4, where Bhoop Singh’s name appeared in the list of candidates sent for regularization, and no seniority list or objective criteria was used to justify bypassing him.
Evidence of Qualification Was Uncontroverted
Bhoop Singh deposed as PW-2 that he was 8th pass at the time of appointment, and he submitted his certificate. He also stated that he was engaged for full-time daily wage work, not seasonally.
The Court found this testimony credible and consistent with records:“The appellant clearly stated under oath that he was 8th pass. This was not effectively contradicted. The plea that Mohan Lal was 9th pass cannot justify exclusion, particularly in the absence of rules prescribing 8th standard as the cutoff.”
First Appellate Court Erred by Ignoring Established Facts and Binding Resolutions
Justice Sharma summarized: “The First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the Board’s resolution to regularize was never withdrawn. No evidence was led to show essential qualification was a prerequisite. Disqualification on such basis is wholly unsustainable in law.”
Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul was set aside, and the trial court decree dated 31.08.2004 was restored, granting Bhoop Singh:
Regularization of service as Peon
All consequential benefits from the date of entitlement
Protection from termination under any false pretext
Administrative Arbitrariness Must Yield to Judicial Review When No Justifiable Basis Is Shown
The judgment is a powerful reaffirmation of equality in service jurisprudence, particularly for daily wagers and lower-grade workers, where ad-hoc decisions often hide systemic bias.
The Court’s observation is a reminder:“Approval by a statutory Board based on conduct and performance cannot be lightly brushed aside by citing a non-existent rule. Discrimination in regularization violates the basic tenet of fairness.”
Date of Decision: November 7, 2025
