Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Kusheshwar Prasad Singh, son of late Baldeo Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondents
W.P. (S) No. 5107 of 2017
Decided on : 23-04-2024
[REGULARIZATION] - [EMPLOYMENT LAW] - [Statute for Regularization dated 29.01.1986, Bihar Inter-University Board Act, 1981] - [The court interpreted the Statute for Regularization dated 29.01.1986, which requires at least a second-class Master's degree for regularization of temporary lecturers. The court emphasized that the requirement of a 'high second-class Master's degree' mentioned in the advertisement was not a valid ground for denial of regularization, as the statute clearly defined the qualifications necessary for regularization. The court concluded that the petitioner met the statutory requirements and thus was entitled to regularization and associated benefits.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lecturer who retired in 2016 after 39 years of service, sought regularization of his position and associated benefits after his claim was rejected based on not having a 'high second-class Master's degree' despite holding a second-class degree. The petitioner argued that the relevant statute for regularization only required a second-class degree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner satisfied the conditions for regularization as per the Statute for Regularization dated 29.01.1986, which required at least a second-class Master's degree. The court held that the insistence on a 'high second-class Master's degree' was not supported by the statute and that the petitioner’s appointment was not illegal but rather irregular due to the lack of a specific definition of 'high second-class' at the time of his appointment.
Issues: Whether the claim for regularization could be denied on the basis of not possessing a 'high second-class Master's degree' when the statute only required a second-class Master's degree for regularization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the specific provisions of the Statute for Regularization dated 29.01.1986 must be followed, and since the petitioner met the qualifications outlined therein, the rejection of his claim based on the advertisement's requirements was improper.
Final Decision: The court quashed the rejection order, directed the regularization of the petitioner’s service, and mandated the issuance of all associated benefits, including pension, within specified timelines.
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition was initially filed for the following reliefs: -
3. During pendency of the writ petition, the claim for regularization of the services of the petitioner was rejected and rejection order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter No. KU-04/2020 1490 dated 25.08.2021 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Hon’ble Governor’s Secretariat, Jharkhand, Ranchi and writ petition was amended seeking further relief as follows: -
4. Arguments of the petitioner as recorded in order dated 23.02.2024
A. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the crux of the dispute between the parties arises out of impugned letter dated 25.08.2021 issued under the signature of Under Secretary, Hon’ble Governor Secretariat, Jharkhand Ranchi whereby the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services in the University on the post in Lecturer in K.S. College, Seraikela has been rejected. The learned counsel submits that on account of rejection of regularization of the services of the petitioner, the petitioner has been deprived of the pension and other benefits and so far as other reliefs are concerned, they would be based on the pronouncement on the legality and validity of the aforesaid impugned letter dated 25.08.2021.
B. While assailing the impugned order dated 25.08.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the scheme for regularization was required to be taken into consideration in totality. He has submitted that the scheme for regularization has been placed on record on page no.135 of the amended writ petition which provides that for regularization, as per clause 1 (b) the required qualification was at least a Second-Class Master’s Degree in the subject. He submits that the scheme for regularization is dated 29.01.1986 which stood amended on 17.0
The court established that the qualifications for regularization as per the statute take precedence over any conflicting requirements stated in advertisements, emphasizing the importance of adhering ....
Regularization of part-time employees must adhere to the principles of regular appointment and cannot be granted as a back-door entry.
The cancellation of an employee's regularization based on arbitrary grounds violates principles of non-discrimination and due process, necessitating restoration of benefits to similarly situated indi....
Eligibility for regularization and pension is contingent upon meeting the prescribed qualifications at the time of appointment and undergoing a selection process.
Regularization of services of lecturers requires adherence to specific eligibility criteria and procedures; failure to comply results in the denial of such claims.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
