Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Sunil Kumar S/o Hanuman Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (S) Nos. 2825, 3511 of 2021
Decided On : 04-04-2024
(A) Jharkhand Sarkar Ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup Se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo Ki Sewa Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015 - Regularization of services - Petitioners appointed on sanctioned posts of Routine Clerk for over 16 years - Impugned order rejecting regularization quashed - Court directed regularization based on eligibility established by prior committee recommendations. (Paras 1, 5, 36)
(B) Regularization - Irregular appointments - Court held that irregular appointments made by competent authority can be regularized if employees have served for over ten years, emphasizing the need for pragmatic interpretation of rules. (Paras 24, 35)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought regularization after years of service against sanctioned posts, previously recommended for regularization by a committee, but faced rejection by the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer.
Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection arbitrary and contrary to established rules, ordering regularization of the petitioners' services.
Issues: Whether a sub-committee can be constituted after a committee's recommendation for regularization, and the legality of the petitioners' initial appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the sub-committee's formation was contrary to law and that the petitioners were entitled to regularization based on their long service and prior committee findings.
Result: The order rejecting regularization was quashed, and the respondents were directed to regularize the petitioners' services.
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
1. Both these writ petitions have been preferred for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 737/J dated 16.06.2021 issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the petitioners’ claim for regularization has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization/absorption on Class III post i.e. Lower Division Clerk giving them age relaxation with all consequential benefits.
2. Argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners:
(ii) The Government of Jharkhand framed ‘Jharkhand Sarkar Ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup Se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo Ki Sewa Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015’ (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rule 2015’) and the said rule was subsequently modified vide Memo No. 4871 dated 20.06.2019 after the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, (2018) 8 SCC 238.
(iii) P1 and P2 had earlier preferred writ petitions being W.P. (S) No. 2517 of 2020 and W.P. (S) No. 5512 of 2018 respectively seeking direction upon the respondents to regularize them in service. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide orders dated 09.11.2020 and 10.07.2019 respectively, whereby the respondent-State was directed to take a conscious decision for regularization of the petitioners’ services.
(iv) A proposal for regularization of the petitioners’ services as well as services of other irregularly appointed/working employees was sent by the Advocate General to the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand and thereafter in the light of the notifications dated 13th February, 2015 and 20th June, 2019 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, a committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for making recommendation with respect to regularization of the services of the employees working in the office of the Department of Law and its attached offices (office of the Advocate General, Jharkhand and the Jharkhand State Law Commission) on verification of documents and assessing their eligibility for the said purpose. The said Committee finally found that the petitioners were eligible to be regularized. However, on the one hand no decision was taken for regularization of the petitioners’ services and on the other hand the Advocate General, Jharkhand was continuously writing to the Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Ranchi for posting of two Lower Division Clerks.
(v) Subsequently, an order as contained in Memo No. 737/J dated 16.06.2021 was issued under signature of the Principal Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi in pursuance of the order dated 09.11.2020 passed in W.P. (S) No. 251
Irregular appointments made by competent authorities can be regularized if employees have served for over ten years, emphasizing the need for pragmatic interpretation of rules.
Regularization of services for employees who have served for over ten years is a right that must be considered by the state, provided there are no valid objections, and the state must adhere to its o....
Appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.
Completion of ten years of service gives a right to regularization, which cannot be negated by subsequent policy changes unless misconduct is proven.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to regularization after completing ten years of service on sanctioned and vacant posts, as supported by constitutional....
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
