Regularisation can only be considered for employees who were duly qualified, appointed against vacant sanctioned posts, and worked for ten years or more without the intervention of the courts or tribunals.

ORDER :

Dictated in open Court :

This petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of order dated 01.02.2012, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Bhopal (M.P.), in pursuance of the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this High Court in Writ Petition No.255/2011 (S) on 10.01.2011, directing the respondents herein to consider case of the petitioner for regularisation in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1].

2. Petitioner's contention is that petitioner's representation for regularisation has been rejected on two grounds, namely, when he was appointed as a daily wager, then at that point of time, as per the recruitment rules in vogue, educational qualification was not fulfilled by the petitioner. Similarly, at he time of his initial engagement, he was above the prescribed age limit in the said rules.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation [(1990) 1 SCC 361] and drawing attention of this Court to para 6 of the said judgment, submits that the ratio of law laid down in Bhagwati Prasad (supra), is that if a person was engaged as a daily rated worker and at the time of consideration of their cases for regularisation, the question relevant will be not the qualification at the stage of appointment, but the practical experience which was gained by a worker by virtue of his work. Thus, it is submitted that even if, petitioner was not qualified at the time of his initial engagement as 'Nakedar', then also he will be entitled to regularisation in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad (supra).

4. Placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), it is submitted that in case of Umadevi (supra) though considered decision of Bhagwati Prasad (supra) in para 18. But, as far as educational qualification is concerned, law laid down in case of Bhagwati Prasad (supra) is not overruled and, therefore, ratio of Bhagwati Prasad (supra) as far as requirement of educational qualification being upset by the experience will still hold the field and, therefore, respondents were required to consider the case of the petitioner without taking into consideration the requirement of educational qualifications or that of age at the time of initial engagement as daily rated worker.

5. Shri Rameshwar P. Singh, learned counsel placing reliance on Annx.R/3, which is an extract of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Up Vidhi, 1972, submits that in Schedule-III under Sub-rule 38(A), minimum qualification prescribed for Nakedar/Announcer is Higher Secondary Examination pass. He submits that the minimum age was 18 years and maximum prescribed age is 30 years and since this qualification is not available at the time of initial engagement of the petitioner, who was admittedly High School pass and was 32 years of age, therefore, regularisation could not be made as his appointment was not irregular as mentioned in case of Umadevi (supra), but illegal.

6. To this submission, Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, submits that Schedule-III is to be read which in Note III, submits that the maximum age for employees of Mandi Samiti will be 38 years. To support his contention, it is submitted that before being appointed as 'Nakedar' on 02.10.1986 at Damoh, petitioner had worked for a year at Patharia as 'Nakedar' and, thereafter, on 27.06.1998 post of 'Nakedar' was redesignated as Assistant Sub Inspector and it has become a State Cadre post. Thus, placing reliance on this fact that the petitioner was already an employee of Mandi Samiti, prior to his engagement as 'Nakedar' on 02.10.1986 at Damoh, it is pointed out that maximum age limit will be 38 and not 30 years, as has been mentioned by the respondents in impugned order Annx.P/1.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the