A judicial order directing an authority to merely 'consider' a claim for regularization in accordance with applicable rules does not grant automatic benefits and is not subject to interference as it does not violate settled law prohibiting the granting of regularization as a matter of right.

For Petitioners : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate

(Division Bench)

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Order On Board

23.03.2026

Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioners assailing the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur, in O.A. No. 641/2022, whereby the Tribunal has been pleased to direct the Petitioners to consider the Respondent’s claim for regularization of service. Hence, the present petition seeking following reliefs :

“10.1. That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal.

10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 641/2022 (Annexure P/1).

10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief that it deems fit in the interest of justice.

10.4 Cost of petition may also be given.”

2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the respondent was initially engaged as a daily wager in the capacity of Electrician-cum-Plumber (ECP) by Petitioner No. 4 on 23.07.1997 on collectorate rates. The said engagement was purely temporary and contractual in nature, made without following any prescribed recruitment process under the applicable service rules. It is pertinent to note that the terms of engagement explicitly stipulated that such temporary employment would not confer any right upon the Respondent to claim regular appointment in the establishment of the Petitioners, and that his services were liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason and without prior notice. It is further submitted that the Government of India, vide Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993, had formulated a scheme for grant of temporary status and eventual regularization of casual workers. The said scheme was applicable only to those casual workers who were in employment as on 01.09.1993 and had completed one year of continuous service. The Respondent, having been engaged much later on 23.07.1997, was clearly not covered under the ambit of the said scheme, and therefore, could not claim any benefit thereunder. Subsequently, the post of Electrician-cum-Plumber was formally sanctioned on 17.10.2008.

In furtherance thereof, a regular recruitment process was initiated by the Petitioners, and an advertisement dated 02.09.2013 was issued inviting applications for the said post. The essential qualification prescribed for the post was an ITI certificate or its equivalent in the trade of Electrician or Wireman from a recognized institution. In the course of the recruitment process, the Respondent participated in the trade test along with other candidates. However, during the scrutiny conducted by the Vidyalaya Appointment Committee (VAC) on 12.10.2017, it came to light that although the Respondent had initially represented himself as possessing an ITI Electrician qualification and had produced a certificate to that effect at the time of the trade test, he later admitted that his actual qualification was ITI Instrument Mechanic and that he did not possess the requisite ITI Electrician certificate. It was further revealed that the certificate submitted by him was forged. In view of this, the VAC concluded that the Respondent was ineligible for the post of Electrician-cum-Plumber and accordingly rejected his candidature. Aggrieved by his rejection, the Respondent submitted a rep