IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI ON THE 20^TH OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 6129 of 2024 MANISH PATEL AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Dixita Gupta - Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Swati Ukhale – G.A for respondents No. 1 &2 /State Shri Ashutosh Nimgaonkar - Advocate for the respondent No.3,4 & 5.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 16/06/2023 (Annexure P/11) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularization has been rejected on the ground that there exists no provision of regularization under the departmental policy and that opportunities for Samvida Karmis for regular appointment have been provided under circulars dated 05/06/2018, 20/12/2019 and

04/10/2022, which are stated to be under process.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that respondent No.3 issued an order dated 27/12/2011 (Annexure P/1) directing all District Central Cooperative Banks in the State to appoint Computer Operators for preparation of database and for core banking work, with remuneration up to a ceiling of Rs.16,500/-. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were appointed by respondent No.4 by issuing appointment orders (Annexure P/2). Their engagement was initially contractual; however, their services were continuously extended from time to time with the approval of respondent No.3.

3. It is further the case of the petitioners that they have been working continuously since the years 2011–2014 without any blemish, adverse entry or disciplinary proceedings. Over the years, the petitioners were entrusted with core banking functions which are perennial and essential in nature. Considering their indispensable role, respondent No.3 himself recommended regularization of the petitioners vide letter dated 08/09/2017, taking into account their qualifications, productivity and the fact that they fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed under Schedule-III of the M.P. District Cooperative Central Bank Employees (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions)

Service Rules, 2014.

4. The petitioners submitted several representations seeking regularization, which ultimately led to filing of W.P. No.29996/2022. The said petition was disposed of on 05/01/2023 with a direction to respondent No.3 to decide the representations by passing a reasoned and speaking order. In purported compliance thereof, the impugned order dated 16/06/2023 came to be passed rejecting the claim of regularization of the petitioners.

5. During pendency of the present petition, respondent (Bank) issued a communication dated 20/09/2024 indicating that six months’ contractual period of the petitioners had come to an end. However, no formal termination order was served upon the petitioners and they continued to work till 04/11/2024. This Court, after hearing the parties, granted an order of status quo on 22/10/2024, which remained unobjected to by the respondents at that stage.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent (Bank) is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as there exists deep and pervasive control of the State Government over its functioning, finances and administration. It was submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind, as the respondents have mixed up the concept of regularization with regular appointment through examination.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, to submit that the said judgment does not prohibit regularization in all cases. It was argued that the judgement itself carves out an exception in respect of employees who were appoin