2017 Supreme(MP) 241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
Rohit Arya, J.
Smt. Parvati Bai @ Smt. Parvati Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. and Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 7608 of 2011
Decided On : 03-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri Kumar Gaurav Sharma
For the Respondents: Ms. Sudha Shrivastava
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner held the required educational qualification for regularization, and the reasons given for denying regularization were contrary to law and unreasonable.
Headnote:
Regularization - Assistant Grade III - e0iz0u0ik0 lsok osrueku rFkk Hkrk fu;e, 1967 - [8] - The court discussed the requirements for the appointment of a lower divisional clerk under the e0iz0u0ik0 lsok osrueku rFkk Hkrk fu;e, 1967 and concluded that the petitioner holds the qualification for regularization as Assistant Grade III. The court also highlighted the contradiction in the reasons given for denying regularization and the observations made by the scrutiny committee, emphasizing that the justifications for non-regularization were contrary to law and could not withstand the test of reasonableness.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought redressal for non-regularization as Assistant Grade III despite two court orders for reinstatement. The respondents denied regularization citing illegal initial appointment and lack of qualification as per a circular of the State Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner held the required educational qualification for regularization and that the reasons given for denying regularization were contrary to law and unreasonable. The court concluded that the petitioner should be regularized as Assistant Grade III from the date of her reinstatement.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the petitioner's initial appointment, her qualification for regularization, and the reasons given by the respondents for denying regularization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner held the required educational qualification for regularization and that the reasons given for denying regularization were contrary to law and unreasonable.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed with a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Assistant Grade III from the date of her reinstatement.
Rohit Arya, J.
This is the third visit of the petitioner knocking the doors of justice in the matter of redressal of her grievance against non-regularization as Assistant Grade III despite two orders passed by this Court i.e. order dated 22/08/2007 in W.P. No.1439/2004 (Annexure P/3), whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while up holding the award passed by the Labour Court dated 26/04/2004 with regard to reinstatement of the petitioner, though declined to award back wages. The Labour Court, upon adjudication of dispute on the following reference:-
^lk{; dh mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij izFkei{k ds lanfHkZr fookn ds laca/k esa f}rh; i{k dh vksj ls dh xbZ lsok lekfIr dh dk;Zokgh dks voS/k o vuqfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd izFke i{k dks iqu% fu-Js-fy- ds in ij fu;ksftr djsa vkSj fiNyk ipkl izfr'kr osru dk Hkqxrku djsa] mHk;i{k viuk O;; ogu djsaA*
had ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner as Lower Divisional Clerk, which is at par with Assistant Grade III. Thereafter, respondents reinstated the petitioner w.e.f. 26/04/2004 but continued her as daily wage employee.
2. Petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P. No.2322/2010(s). This Court while disposing of the said W.P. on 11/05/2011 has passed the following order:-
"Respondents No.4 and 5 shall consider the claim of the petitioner for her regularization in their service in terms of their policy on regularization applicable to the petitioner and shall pass a speaking order within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order under intimation to the petitioner to enable her to avail her legal remedy against the said order, if occasion so arises."
3. Respondents have passed the impugned order dated 08/12/2011 denying regularization to the petitioner for the reason that at the time of her initial appointment on 12/01/1994 as Assistant Grade III, the said appointment was not against any vacant post, therefore, initial appointment order of the petitioner was illegal and her reinstatement was only due to the order passed by the labour Court. Under such circumstances, she does not hold the qualification for regularization in terms of the circular of the State Government dated 16/05/2007. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order.
4. On notice, contesting respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit and placed on record the report of the scrutiny committee dated 08/12/2011, wherein the case of the petitioner was considered and not found fit for regularization for the following reasons :-
^^mi;qZDr fooj.k ds vuqlkj Jherh ikoZrh flag dh 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk gk;j lsds.Mjh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gS e- iz- uxjikfydk lsok ¼osrueku ,oa HkRrk½ fu;e ds vuqlkj lgk;d xzsM rhu in dh 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk gk;j lsds.Mjh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ ,oa fgUnh eqnzys[ku ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksuk vfuok;Z gSA bl izdkj Jherh ikoZrh flag HkrhZ fu;e vuqlkj in dh vfuokZ; ;ksX;rk fgUnh eqnzys[ku ijh{kk mRrh.kZ ugh gSA ,oa Jherh ikoZrh flag fudk; esa iqu% Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds ikyu esa inLFk gSa vr% bUgs fu;ferhdj.k gsrq okpu fd;k x;kA ;kfpdkdrkZ Jherh ikoZrh flag ds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j ds fu.kZ; dk ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fu;ferhdj.k gsrq okpu fd;k x;kA ;kfpdkdrkZ Jherh ikoZrh flag dks fu;ferhdj.k gsrq 'kklu ds ifji=ksa es fn, x, funsZ'kkuqlkj 2 fcanq ds vHkko ds dkj.k fu;ferhdj.k gsrq vik= ekuk tkrk gSA vr% mDr leLr fcanqvksa ds ifjis{; esa Jherh ikoZrh flag nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh dks fu;ferhdj.k gsrq ik= u ik, tkus ds dkj.k ;g izdj.k vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA rn~laca/k esa ;kfpdkdrkZ dks lwfpr fd;k tk,A**
5. As such, two sets of orders have been passed viz Annexure P/1 dated 08/08/2011 and Annexure R/1 dated 14/12/2011 with different reasons but claim of regularization was denied.
6. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it has been contended that petitioner fulfils the educational as well as other eligibility criteria, as she is higher secondary pass and also has the knowledge of typing at the time of appointment and since then she is performing duties of Assistant Grade III and doing ty