The principle of equitable estoppel applies when similarly situated employees are treated differently, and employees who meet the minimum qualifications for a position should be treated in the same manner.

1. The petitioner was given appointment on daily wage basis as Warder in October, 1991 in the Prison Department. He was not regularised on the ground that he was not medically fit to the post of Warder. He along with one Parshotam Lal filed writ petition bearing SWP No. 1306/96 for their regularization as Warders. Said writ petition came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 09.02.1998 by holding that they were entitled to regularization and they would not be declared unfit merely on the medical unfitness.

2. On this, Additional Director General Prison and Fire Service, Jammu issued Order No. 11 of 1998 dated 23.04.1998 whereby he and one Parshotam Lal were appointed as Safai Karamcharis. Petitioner along with one Parshotam Lal im#31;mediately represented the respondents for regularization of their services as Ward#31;ers in terms of judgment dated 09.02.1998 and change of cadre, but, the responden vide Order No. 106 of 2002 dated 30.09.2002 considered'the case of Parshotam and kept the case of the petitioner pending for want of certain queries with rega to his medical fitness. Thereafter, petitioner was examined by the Medical Board, who declared him medically fit. Petitioner made representations to the respondents, despite that his case for change of cadre from Safaikaramchari to Warder has not been considered. Therefore, through the medium of petition-in-hand petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint/regular#31;ize/adjust him as Warder in the Prison Department with all consequential benefits, i.e. arrears of pay seniority as Warder and further promotion.

3. Respondents filed reply stating therein that on the basis of judgment dated 09.02.1998 passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered along with one Parshotam Lal. They were appointed as Safai Karamcharis vide order dated 23.04.1998 on the ground that they were found stammering by the Committee constituted. It is also stated that case of one Parshotam Lal was considered for change of cadre only on the ground that he was B.A., B.Ed, and the post of Safai Karamchari was not suitable for him as per his qualification.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. It is not in dispute that petitioner and Parshotam Lal were regularised on the post of Safairkaramcharis. Lateron, on the representation of Parshotam Lal, his cadre was changed from Safaikaramchari to Warder on the ground that he was B. A., B.Ed, and the post of Safai Karamchari was not suitable for him on the basis of his qualification. Principle of equitable estoppel would apply in the present case as when both the petitioner and Parshotam Lal were appointed as Safaikaramcharis and lateron cadre of Parshotam Lal was changed on the basis of his having higher qualification then there is no justification to deny the same treatment to the peti#31;tioner unless it is shown that petitioner is not eligible and qualified to hold the post of Warder, Once the Medical Board has declared the petitioner fit and when the qualification as minimum prescribed for the post of Warder is acquired by the petitioner, then the respondents are duty bound to consider the case of the petitioner on the same analogy as has been accorded in favour of Parshotam Lal. The action of the respondents to apply double standards and different yard stick while dealing with the similarly situated employees, cannot be appreciated.

6. In view of above, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to accord consideration to the case of the petitioner for his adjustment to the post of Warder on the same lines as has been done in case of Parshotam Lal.

7. Disposed of as above along with connected CMA(s).

Click Here to Read the rest of this document