Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 10519 OF 2020)

VIBHUTI SHANKAR PANDEY …APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant who is

aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2020, by which a

Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set

aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated

27.06.2019, which had granted the benefit of regularization

to the present appellant.

Signature Not Verified

3. The case of the appellant is that he was engaged in Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI

1980 as a Supervisor, on daily rated basis, under a project Date: 2023.02.08 16:38:38 IST Reason:

of the State Water Resources Department of Madhya 2

Pradesh. The appellant sought regularization on the post of

Supervisor/Time Keeper. Admittedly, the minimum

qualification for the said post was matriculation with

mathematics; a qualification which the appellant did not

possess. These qualifications were relaxed by a

Government Circular dated 31.12.2010 and the appellant

sought his regularization on the post of Supervisor/Time

Keeper, as he was qualified for the post and had been

working on daily wage basis for a long period of time. In

fact, in another writ petition (W.P. 13997/2010) filed by the

appellant earlier, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide

order dated 02.11.2017, had given directions to the State

Government to decide the claim of the writ petitioner in

accordance with law. Vide order dated 18.06.2018 issued

by the Office of Chief Engineer, Rani Avanti Bai Lodhi

Sagar Project, the claim of the appellant for regularization

was rejected for the reasons that though the minimum

qualifications of matriculation with mathematics will not

come in the way for his regularization, but the fact remains

that the appellant was never appointed against any post.

Moreover, his appointment was never made by the 3

competent authority and there were no posts available at

the time for regularization. The appellant on the other

hand, had set his claim for regularization as persons who

were junior to him as daily wagers were regularized in the

year 1990 or even before. The learned Single Judge while

allowing the writ petition gave directions for regularization

of the appellant from the date on which his juniors were

regularized. This order was challenged by the State

Government before a Division Bench which allowed the

appeal of the State Government. The Division Bench rightly

held that the learned Single Judge has not followed the

principle of law as given by this Court in Secretary, State

of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors.1, as initial

appointment must be done by the competent authority and

there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated

employee must be working. These two conditions were

clearly missing in the case of the present appellant. The

Division Bench of the High Court therefore has to our mind

rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated

27.06.2019.

1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 4

4. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution

Bench of this Court in Uma Devi (supra), the appellant had

no case for regularization. There is no scope, hence, for our

interference with the order of the Division Bench of the

Madhya Pradesh High Court. Appeal is dismissed.

……............................. .J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT]

.

…….............................J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

New Delhi, February 8, 2023