Discrimination in employment regularization claims is impermissible; regularization can only be sought while in service, not post-termination.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 07.05.2021, rejecting the petitioner's request for regularisation. The second respondent has rejected the petitioner's request for regularisation on the ground that there is no vocational instructor post available and the said post has now been abolished. According to the petitioner, similarly placed employees as that of the petitioner were regularised into service in the fifth respondent school and only the petitioner has been discriminated.

2.According to the petitioner, there cannot be any discrimination in regularisation between the same category of employees. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 13.01.2020. According to him, as per the impugned proceedings dated 13.01.2020, the petitioner's name is found in the probable list for regularisation. He would also submit that those who were appointed on temporary basis subsequent to the petitioner's appointment have been regularised but the petitioner alone has not been regularised, which amounts to discrimination which is not permissible in law.

3.In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 520 dated 03.07.2023, in the case of Raman Kumar & others Vs. Union of India & others. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in identical circumstances, where there was discrimination between employees while regularising them into service, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the employer to regularise the remaining employees also into service.

4.On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents reiterated the contents of the impugned order as well as the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent before this Court on behalf of all the official respondents. He would also rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Balam Prasad & others Vs. State of Bihar & others dated 27.11.2017, reported in 2017 Supreme (SC) 1125. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that regularisation can be claimed only when the employee is in service and not after termination. He would also submit that as seen from the aforesaid decision, appointment for a temporary period comes to an end at the end of that period. He would also submit that grant of extension to work for some more period cannot make an employee permanent and such an employee cannot claim regularisation.

5.The following facts are undisputed:

a) The petitioner has been relieved from the service from the fifth respondent school as early as in the year 2018.

b) The petitioner did not seek for regularisation while he was in service.

c) He has sought for regularisation only after he was relieved from service in the year 2018.

6.The petitioner relies upon the proceedings dated

13.01.2020 of the third respondent and submits that even though the petitioner's name is found in the said list which is the probable list maintained by the third respondent for regularisation of employees, he has been deprived of regularisation. In the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Raman Kumar's case referred to supra, it is not clear as to whether in that decision the employee was still in service or was relieved from service when his request for regularisation was rejected by the employer. However, in the decision relied upon by the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents in Raj Balam's case, it has been made clear that regularisation can be claimed only