IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of treating similarly situated persons alike and the obligation of the employer to extend benefits to all eligible employees.

ORDER :

1. Learned counsel for the respondents have shown to this Court the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Sunil Kumar Ojha Vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1456/2016 and other connected matters; the operative portion of which, reads as follows :

“In view of the above, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners are also allowed with similar directions as given in the case of Virendra Kumar Sharma (supra), which reads as under:-

“7. Resultantly, all these writ petitions are allowed in terms of Jitendra Kumar’s case (supra) and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners and pass appropriate suitable orders awarding them consequential benefits within a period of three months from today.””

2. The aforementioned order dated 16.01.2019 was upheld by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 13.08.2021 in Jai Narain Vyas University & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Sharma, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.347/2019 & other connected matters, the operative portion of which is reproduced as hereunder :

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. P.R. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-University vehemently submitted that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge are unjust, improper and incorrect as the respondents-petitioners were given appointment through the placement agency and as such, there was no master-servant relationship between the appellant-University and the respondents-petitioners. Thus, there was no question for the appellant-University to regularize the services of the respondents-petitioners, more so, when the placement agency was not arrayed as party respondent. He further contended that there was a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the University and the State which provides that the State is the final authority for creation of posts and filling up the vacancies and since the State was not arrayed as party respondent in the writ petitions, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties also.

Learned counsel for the appellant-University argued that the respondents-petitioners were employed through placement agency, therefore, they cannot be termed as the employees of the appellant-University and there was no question of regularizing their services on the posts as mentioned above. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Dayalal reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429.

The learned counsel implored the Court that the case of Dr. Vikrant Sharma vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University decided on 03.08.2016 is having no similarity with the case of the present respondents-petitioners as Dr. Vikrant Sharma – petitioner therein was appointed by the University and not through the contractor/placement agency and, therefore, the learned Single Judge fell in error while considering the case of respondents-petitioners on the ground of parity with the case of Dr. Vikrant Sharma. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents-petitioners were not appointed on the sanctioned strength of posts and since they were appointed beyond the sanctioned strength of the regular employees, their case cannot be considered for regularization. He argued that while deciding the case of Deepak Dave (supra), the learned Single Judge did not correctly apply the law laid down in the case of Ramavtar Sharma and Ors. vs. RSRTC and Ors. reported in 2015 (2) WLC (Raj) 112 and instead relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Jitendra Kumar vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University decided on 13.12.2013.

Shri P.R. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-University vehemently argued that in the case of State of Bihar vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad and Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that observations made in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi cannot be made applicable in every case and, therefore, the learned Singl