The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of an order must be adjudged on the grounds on which it has been passed, and in this case, the court found that the cancellation of regularization was not justified based on the interpretation of the relevant resolution and meeting minutes.

1. As challenge in these appeals under section 2(1) of the MP Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is made to a consolidated order-dated 6.2.2012, passed in Writ Petition Nos. 6622/2008(s) and 9483/2008(s), both these appeals are being heard and decided by this common order.

2. Appellant Sanjay Gandhi Yuva Netratva Avam Gramin Vikas Prashikshan Sansthan, Panchmarhi is a society registered under the provisions of MP Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. On 21.7.2005, an advertisement was issued by the society calling upon willing candidates to submit their candidature for appointment on the post of Computer Operator as well as LDC - Assistant Grade III. In the advertisement, it was indicated that the appointment is on contract basis initially for a period of one year, on a consolidated salary of Rs. 3800/4000, which can be extended on satisfactory performance by the candidate. The respondents/employee applied, a selection process was conducted, they were subjected to interview and both of them were selected and appointed as Assistant Grade III and Computer Operator. It was found by the Director that their initial appointment was in accordance with the Rules and they are entitled for regular appointment, therefore, their services were regularized. It seems that after the Director retired on attaining the age of superannuation, the impugned action was taken by the Incharge Director. It was found by the Incharge Director that regularization of the respondents/employee was done in violation to a Resolution dated 21.10.2004 and, therefore, the regularization dated 14.8.2006 were cancelled.

3. Writ petitions were filed challenging the cancellation and when the petitions came up for hearing, after perusal of the records the learned writ Court found that the only reason indicated for passing the impugned order was that the regularization was contrary to the mandate of the resolution dated 21.10.2004 and, therefore, the orders of regularization were cancelled. The writ Court found that in the resolution dated 21.10.2004, there is nothing pertaining to appellants’ regularization or its cancellation. The resolution dated 21.10.2004 pertained to grant of pay scale to the employees and on further evaluating the entire matter, the learned writ Court found that the reason for cancellation is unsustainable. It was found that the Director has exercised the power for regularization properly and in paragraph 9 of the order, the learned writ Court dealt with the matter in the following manner:

“9. It is well settled in law that validity of an order has to be adjudged on the ground on which it has been passed. See: Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SC 851. From perusal of the order dated 21.5.2008, it is apparent that the same has been passed on the ground that the order appointment the petitioners on regular basis has been issued in violation of the resolution dated 21.10.2004 as well as without obtaining any prior permission from the administrative department. I have carefully gone through the resolution dated 21.10.2004. It no where prohibits the appointment of an employee on regular basis. The resolution deals with the grant of benefit of Vth Pay Commission to the employees of respondent No.2-Institute. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 was unable to point out any provision in the Articles of Association which requires that prior approval of the administrative department is required to be obtained before appointment a person on regular basis. The fact that the Director has appointed several persons in the past as well is apparent from orders Annexure P/15. Thus, the orders dated 12.8.2006 and 14.8.2006 were passed as per the practice prevalent in the respondent No.2-Institute and in the absence of any prohibition in the Articles of Association, the same cannot be said to be bad in the eye of law. The resolution dated 21.4.2004 is wholl