An appointment lacking requisite qualifications at the start is irregular, not illegal. If the employee subsequently acquires the qualification and serves continuously against a sanctioned post, denial of regularization is arbitrary and violates constitutional rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21.

Order

07/05/2026

By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most humble prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and by and appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned proceeding dated 01.08.2016 (Annex.15) deserves to be quashed and set aside and respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Driver from the date of initial appointment and also directed to give the regular pay scale to the petitioner from the date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits and make the payment of arrears. ….”

The petitioner, who was appointed in the respondent department in the year 1985 as a daily-rated Driver and has been working against a vacant sanctioned post, has preferred the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize his services and grant consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a daily-rated Driver vide order dated 08.05.1985 issued by the competent authority of the respondent department. It was further submitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 07.10.1986 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Upon an industrial dispute being raised by the petitioner, the learned Labour Court, vide award dated 26.10.1989, held the retrenchment of the petitioner to be illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated on the post of Driver w.e.f. 27.02.1993 with back wages and continuity of service in terms of the award passed by the learned Labour Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13673/2015 before this Court seeking regularization of his services. This Court, vide order dated 01.12.2015, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s claim for regularization within a period of two months, keeping in view the notification dated 08.07.2009 issued by the Government of Rajasthan as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi ” reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.

Learned counsel submitted that in compliance of the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13673/2015, the respondent department considered the case of the petitioner for regularization along with two other Class-IV employees of the department, namely Ishwar Singh and Krishna Kumar. Vide order dated 01.08.2016, the services of the said Class-IV employees were regularized from the date of their initial appointment; however, the petitioner was denied regularization on the ground that at the time of his initial appointment on the post of Driver in the year 1985, he did not possess the qualification of passing 8th Class as prescribed under the relevant Service Rules.

Learned counsel submitted that the reason assigned in the order dated 01.08.2016 for denying regularization to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the petitioner had passed the 8th Class examination in the year 1993-94. Thus, at the time when his case was considered for regularization by the respondent department, he possessed the requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Driver under the relevant Service Rules. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been continuously working against a vacant sanctioned post in the respondent department since the year 1993 without any interruption. It was contended that in a welfare State, denial of regularization for decades despite continuous service amounts to institutional exploitation of a poor employee, which has repeatedly been deprecated by this Court as well as by