Regularization of employees must comply with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, and any regularization contrary to these principles is illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Gopinath P., J.

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C).No.2660/2017. The appellants, who were the writ petitioners, claimed that they were entitled to regularization of their services under the 1st respondent, the Institute of Human Resources Development [hereinafter referred to as the ‘IHRD’]. Their claim having been rejected by the Learned Single Judge, they are in appeal before us.

2. The appellants had, together with certain others, earlier approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.2115/2010, which resulted in Ext.P5 judgment, whereby, a Division Bench of this Court had disposed of the matter observing that the IHRD had to take appropriate decision in the matter by “ ........ applying the same yardstick that had been adopted in the case of other similarly placed employees…...”. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners would contend that Exts.P7 and P8 orders will show that the IHRD had regularized services of similarly placed persons, and that, the impugned Ext.P15 proceedings will show that in the case of the appellants/writ petitioners, a completely different yardstick had been adopted by the IHRD. He would submit that this is completely contrary and in violation of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment. He would also point out that the reasons mentioned in Ext.P15 are completely incorrect and contrary to the actual facts. He would submit that there are sanctioned posts available, and even after finalization of the Special Rules, certain employees who are similarly placed like his clients, have also been regularized.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the IHRD, on the other hand, submits that the IHRD has not taken any decision regarding regularization of provisional employees, and that there are several matters pending before this Court where similarly placed persons have sought regularization. He would submit that the cases of regularization pointed out by the appellants were made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases, and those cannot be treated as a precedent enabling the appellants to claim that a similar treatment must be extended to them.

4. We have considered the contentions raised by either side. It is settled law that an employee cannot claim regularization merely because he has been working in a post for some time. In A. Umarani v. Co-op. Societies (2004) 7 SCC 112), it was held: -

“39. Regularisation, in our considered opinion, is not and cannot be the mode of recruitment by any “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or any body or authority governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder. It is also now well settled that an appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation. (See State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Verma ((1996) 7 SCC 562 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 645 : (1996) 33 ATC 336).)”

In Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408), referring to Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1), it was held: -

“30. In paras 46 to 48 of the judgment, this Court also observed that temporary, contractual, casual or daily wage ad hoc employees appointed de hors the constitutional scheme to public employment have no legitimate expectation to be absorbed or, regularised or granted permanent continuation in service on the ground that they have continued for a long time in service. It was observed by this Court that non-grant of permanent continuation in service of such employees does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution and such employees do not have any enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed, nor to be paid salary of regular employees. A regular pro