The scrutiny committee's rejection of regularization without specific reasoning is insufficient; a fresh decision must consider prior proposals.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 6 OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 7845 of 2022 RAKESH DWIVEDI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ajay Ojha - G.A. for the respondent - State.

ORDER By way of this petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated

14.10.2020 (Annexure P-10), whereby the representation of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case of the petitioner has been rejected in terms of some scrutiny committee recommendations, whereby as many as 1658 employees names had been considered and all 1658 names were declared ineligible in the Scrutiny Committee meeting dated 04.05.2011 for various reasons as mentioned in the said Scrutiny Committee minutes and mentioned in the chart prepared by the said Committee. It is contended that one of the employees had come up to this Court in WP No.17338 of 2012 ( Subhash Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. and others ), and this Court had taken note of the manner in which the scrutiny had taken place in utterly unreasonable and arbitrary manner and had directed the fresh scrutiny to be conducted in accordance with proposal submitted by the Administrative Department/Controlling Officer of the petitioner therein and to decide the issue as Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR per the policy of the State Government dated 16.05.2007 in the matter of regularization. This court in the aforesaid case has held as under :-

"The present petition has been filed falling into question order dated 22/05/2012 and a scrutiny committee recommendation on strength of which the order dated 22/05/2012 has been passed, whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been turned down.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a scrutiny committee has scrutinized the cases of as many as 1658 employees for regularization and rejected the cases of all those persons for regularization. It is contended that the scrutiny committee has not made meaningful consideration of the case of the petitioner.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the scrutiny committee has made proper consideration and the petitioner was not found entitled for regularization.

4. On perusal of the chart prepared by the scrutiny committee, it is seen that the name of the petitioner appears at S.No.1050 and against his name, the reason for his appointment being found illegal are S.Nos.8, 9, 11, & 12. The chart mentions S.No.8 as non availability of vacant post on the date of initial appointment. S.No.9 is not following reservation rules on the date of initial appointment. S.No.11 is appointment made of a person not qualified to hold the post and S.No.12 is appointment made by unauthorized person. The petitioner has placed on record proposal sent by the Executive Engineer dated 02/12/2010 placed on record as Annex.P/17 and in the said proposal, it is duly mentioned that the petitioner was appointed by the Superintendent Engineer and there was vacant post and also that he had the requisite age and education qualification on the date of appointment. Thus, the Executive Engineer had recommended regularization of the petitioner.

5. The circular of the State Government issued in view of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others (2006)4 SCC 1, has been placed on record.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

6. Various instances of illegal appointments are enumerated in the said circular and four out of the said instances have been found in the present case by the scrutiny committee. Scrutiny Committee though taking into account four reasons to hold that the case of the petitioner is not covered for regularization as he is a ille