Long service can justify regularization despite lacking formal qualifications, as established in prior judgments.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. (Oral) LPA-553-2019 (O&M)

This is an LPA preferred against the judgment passed by the Court in CWP- 11424-2015 dated 05.12.2018 whereby the Single Bench, after noticing the judgments passed in the case of Subhash Kumari v. State of Haryana and others reported in 2017 (1) S.C.T. 380 and Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, has found that the writ petitioner had rendered 31 years of unblemished service with the appellant and directed as under:

"5.) Having heard the rival contentions of both the learned counsels and in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner was recommended by the then Chairman, I am of the view that the petitioner having rendered 31 years of unblemished service cannot be denied the benefit of regularization. It is not in dispute that the Board has extracted the work from the employee on the same very post to which he has been throughout seeking regularization. It is too late now in view of the judgments ibid for the Board to contend that the petitioner does not fulfill the qualifications as he does not have matriculation with second division, though it is not in dispute that he is a matriculate. Even if the petitioner is a simple Matriculate, at this belated stage, he cannot be denied the benefit of regularization on the ground that he does not have a second division in Matriculation, it being settled law that once he has been working on the said post, in the present case for 31 long years, he cannot be denied the benefit on the ground of lacking the qualification. Therefore, it is a fit case where the Board ought to have exercised its power of relaxation in respect of qualification as a special case as is reflected from Regulation 31 of their own Regulations, ibid. Admittedly, the petitioner is a matriculate and in view of the judgments cited above he is entitled to be considered for regularization. In view thereof, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization by relaxing the condition of matriculation with second division. However, the consequential benefits of regularization are restricted to 3 years prior to filing of the writ petition."

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no mandamus can be issued for directing to regularize services, more so as the writ petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of clerk as per the regulations of the Board.

3. We have considered the submissions.

4. This Court finds that the writ petitioner had been engaged initially on 01.03.1984 as a clerk and he was relieved from services on 03.03.1985, whereafter he raised a dispute before the Labour Court, and finding that the retrenchment order was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service with full backwages vide award dated 05.04.1994. The award was challenged in CWP-3320-1996 and the Court stayed the backwages. Keeping in view thereto, the writ petitioner was reinstated and continued to perform his duties. While serving, he submitted representation to regularize his services. However, after considering his case, it was found that he did not possess the minimum qualification required for holding the post of a clerk which required an individual to have at least second division in matric. The appellants therefore submit that he could not have been regularized.

5. While serving, he attained superannuation in July, 2015. The writ petitioner preferred the writ petition No.11424 of 2015 wherein the Court passed the order supra.

6. Although the learned counsel submits that the petitioner does not possess minimum educational qualifications for appointment as a clerk, we notice that in the case of Uma Devi (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:

"43. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they approach the court, is the issue of a writ