AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
478 paragraphs · 10,114 wordsIn this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the orders dated 18/01/2017, by which, the orders of regularization of
services of the petitioners who are employees of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, have been cancelled. Though common questions of law arise for
consideration in those bunch of petitions, yet in different factual scenario, therefore, it is necessary to refer the facts of each of the writ petitions,
which are stated infra.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1162/2017 had passed Higher Secondary Examination and had obtained Diploma in Domestic Electrical
Installation. Sometime in the year 1983 the petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage employee on the post of Wireman. The petitioner filed Writ
Petition No.1265/2003 seeking regularization of his services, which was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 03.9.2003 with a direction to
respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services. The petitioner by order dated 12.1.2004 was regularized on the post
of Vaccinator in the pay scale of Rs.3050-3200/-. Thereafter, by order dated 10.8.2005 the order of regularization of services of 74 employees
including the petitioners was cancelled, which was the subject matter of challenge in a bunch of writ petitions, which were disposed of by a Bench of
this Court vide order dated 1.9.2005, by which, the order dated 10.8.2005 directing cancellation of order of regularization was quashed and the
respondent was granted liberty to prepare seniority list and to hear the petitioners and thereafter to pass an order of de-regularisation, if warranted. In
compliance of order passed by the High Court, the order dated 10.8.2005 was cancelled vide order dated 19.9.2005. Thereafter, a show-cause notice
dated 27.8.2011 was issued which was challenged in a bunch of writ petitions before this Court which was disposed of on 06.10.2015 with directions
to theCommissioner to decide the matters after considering the response given by the petitioner expeditiously and giving due opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners within a period of four months and to communicate the decision thereof to the petitioners within same time. The petitioners in the Bunch
were also granted liberty to challenge the decision if the same is adverse to their interest, by way of appropriate proceeding, which will be decided on
its own merits. In pursuance of aforesaid order, impugned orders of deregularisation of services of the petitioner had been passed. As the said order
had been passed by the respondent without issuing show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015
along with other connected petitions were filed before this Court and while deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of
deregularisation of services of the petitioner and directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue
show cause notice containing precise ground on which de-regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be taken. Thereafter the
respondent-Corporation issued show cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the
impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the respondent.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1163/2017 had passed  Higher Secondary Examination and had obtained Diploma in Domestic Electrical
Installation. Sometime in the year 1985 the petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage employee on the post of Wireman. The petitioner filed Writ
Petition No.1265/2003 seeking regularization of his services, which was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 03.9.2003 with a direction to
respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services. The petitioner by order dated 12.1.2004 was regularized on the post
of Vaccinator in the pay scale of Rs.3050-3200/-. Thereafter, by order dated 10.8.2005 the order of regularization of services of 74 employees
including the petitioner was cancelled. Thereafter vide order dated 19/09/2006, the order dated 10/08/2005 was cancelled till further orders.Â
Thereafter on 03/12/2016 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in respect of regularisation of the petitioner seeking explanation within a
period of 15 days. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the
respondent.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1185/2017Â was appointed as daily wage employee on 01.8.1984 on the post of Peon. He filed Writ Petition
No.1266/2003 seeking regularization of his services. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 03.9.2003 with a direction to respondent to
consider the case of petitioner for regularization. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Peon vide order dated
12.1.2004. On 28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioner with regard to regularization of his services and he was given 3 days’
time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of
regularization of services of the petitioner from the post of Peon of OBC category was cancelled. As the said order had been passed by the
respondent without issuing show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.20003/2015 before
this Court and while deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the petitioner and directed the
respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise ground on which de-
regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be taken.  Thereafter the respondentCorporation issued show cause to the petitioner on
03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the respondent.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1186/2017 was appointed as daily wage employee on the post of Bullock Shed Chowkidar on 01.3.1995. He filed
Writ Petition No.1266/2003 seeking regularization of his services. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 03.9.2003 with direction to
respondent to consider the case of petitioner for regularization. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of
‘Kulgade’ Chowkidar vide order dated 12.1.2004. On 28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioner with regard to regularization of his
services and he was given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned
order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner was cancelled. As the said order had been passed by the respondent
without issuing show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other connected
petitions were filed before this Court and while deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the
petitioner and directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise
ground on which de- regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be taken.
Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued show cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice.Â
Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the respondent.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1188/2017 was appointed on the post of Helper (Assistant Wireman) on 13.3.1985. He filed W.P.No.1266/2003
seeking regularization which was disposed of on 03.9.2003. Thereafter, by order dated 12.1.2004 the services of the petitioner were regularized. On
28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioner with regard to regularization of his services and he was given 3 days’ time to submit
explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of
services of the petitioner from the post of Peon was cancelled. As the said order had been passed by the respondent without issuing show cause
notice and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other connected petitions were filed before this
Court and while deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the petitioner and directed the
respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise ground on which de-
regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be taken.  Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued show cause to the petitioner on
03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the
respondent.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1189/2017 was appointed as daily wage employee on the post of Peon in the year 1981. He filed Writ Petition
No.1266/2003, in which, he sought the relief of regularization of his services. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the
case of the petitioner for regularization of his services. Thereafter, by order dated 12.1.2004 the services of petitioner were regularized on the post of
Peon. On 28.10.2015 an information was sought from the petitioner with regard to regularization of his services and he was given 3 days’ time to
submit explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, impugned order was passed by which the services of the
petitioner from the post of Peon was de-regularised.  As the said order had been passed by the respondent without issuing show cause notice and
without giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other connected petitions were filed before this Court and
while deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the petitioner and directed the respondents to
prepare seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise ground on which de-regularisation of the
services of the petitioner is sought to be taken.  Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued show cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The
petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the respondent.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1217/2017 was appointed as daily wage employee on the post of Helper (Assistant Wireman) on 21.11.1982. He
filed Writ Petition No.1266/2003, in which, he sought the relief of regularization of his services. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction
to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services. Thereafter, by order dated 12.1.2004 the services of petitioner were regularized
on the post of Bin Card Attendant. On 28.10.2015 information was sought from the petitioner with regard to regularization of his services and he was
given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015
the order of regularization of services of the petitioner from the post of Peon was cancelled. As the said order had been passed by the respondent
without issuing show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other connected
petitions were filed before this Court and while deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the
petitioner and directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise
ground on which de-regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be taken.  Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued show
cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has
been passed by the respondent.
In Writ Petition No.1223/2017 sometime in the year 1982 the petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage employee on the post of Bullock Shed
Choukidar. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1266/2003 seeking regularization of his services, which was disposed of by the High Court vide order
dated 03.9.2003 with a direction to respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services. The petitioner by order dated
12.1.2004 was regularized on the post of Vaccinator in the pay scale of Rs.3050-3200/-. Thereafter, by order dated 10.8.2005 the order of
regularization of services of 74 employees including the petitioner was cancelled. Thereafter vide order dated 19/09/2006, the order dated
10/08/2005 was cancelled till further orders. Thereafter on 03/12/2016 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in respect of regularisation of
the petitioner seeking explanation within a period of 15 days. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order
dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the respondent.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1254/2017 was appointed as daily wage employee on the post of Helper (Assistant Wireman) on 01.6.1982. He
filed Writ Petition No.1266/2003 seeking regularization of his services. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 03.9.2003 with a direction
to respondent to consider the case of petitioner for regularization. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of
‘Gadivaan’ vide order dated 12.1.2004. On 28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioner with regard to regularization of his services
and he was given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order
dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner was cancelled. As the said order had been passed by the respondent without
issuing show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other connected petitions were
filed before this Court and while deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the petitioner and
directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise ground on
which de-regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be taken. Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued show cause to the
petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by
the respondent.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1337/2017 in the year 1982 was appointed as Daily Wage employee. The petitioner by order dated
12.1.2004 was regularized on the post of Peon. Thereafter, by order dated 10.8.2005 the order of regularization of services of 74 employees including
the petitioner was cancelled.
Thereafter vide order dated 19/09/2006, the order dated10/08/2005 was cancelled till further orders. Thereafter on 03/12/2016 a show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner in respect of regularisation of the petitioner seeking explanation within a period of 15 days. The petitioner replied the
said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the respondent.
The petitioners in Writ Petition No.1551/2017 were appointed as Sub Engineers (Technical) on daily wage basis prior to 31.12.1988. During the
pendency of Writ Petition No.3460/1994, the issue relating to regularization of services of the employees of Municipal Corporation was pending
consideration before High Court, the Corporation took a decision to frame a scheme to regularize the services of the employees who were appointed
prior to 31.12.1988. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.2.2003, inter alia, with the direction that Corporation shall regularize
the services of daily rated employees strictly as per the seniority and eligibility subject to availability of the post. In compliance of the order passed by
High Court vide orders dated 23.4.2003, 22.5.2003 and 28.5.2003 the services of the petitioners were regularized on the post of Sub Engineers. While
passing the order of regularization in the notesheet, it was, inter alia, held that petitioners were working as Sub Engineers (Technical) prior to
31.12.1988. The petitioners fulfilled the requisite qualification of holding three years Diploma in Engineering and the case of petitioners for
regularization can be considered against three vacant posts. Thereafter, by order dated 10.8.2005 the order of regularization of services of 74
employees including petitioner was cancelled, which was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.8359/2005, which was disposed of by
order dated 01.9.2005, by which, the order dated 10.8.2005 directing cancellation of order of regularization was quashed and the respondent was
granted liberty to prepare seniority list and to hear the petitioners and thereafter to pass an order of deregularization, if warranted. In compliance of
order passed by High Court, the order dated 10.8.2005 was cancelled by order dated 19.9.2005. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 27.8.2011 was
issued which was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.10260/2012Â before this Court which was disposed of on 06.10.2015 with a
direction to the Commissioner to decide the matters after considering the response given by the petitioner expeditiously and giving due opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners within a period of four years and to communicate the decision thereof to petitioner within same time. The petitioners in the
Bunch were also granted liberty to challenge the decision if the same is adverse to their interest, by way of appropriate proceeding, which will be
decided on its own merits. On 28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioners with regard to regularization of their services and they were
given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated
19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner were cancelled. As the said order had been passed by the respondent without
issuing show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other connected petitions were
filed before this Court and while deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the petitioner and
directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise ground on
which de-regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be taken.  Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued show cause to the
petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by
the respondent.
In Writ Petition No.1590/2017 the petitioners no.1 & 2 were appointed on daily wage basis on consolidated pay in the year 1988. In pursuance of
the resolution, the services of petitioners No.1 & 2 were regularized on the post of Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 10.10.2003. Whereas the
services of petitioners no.3, 4 & 5 were regularized on the post of Pump Attendant vide order dated 12.1.2004. The services of petitioner No.6 was
regularized vide order dated 12.1.2004. The services of petitioners No.7 & 8 were regularized by order dated 12.1.2004 on the post of Vaccinators.
The services of petitioner No.9 were regularized on the post of Ward Supervisor, whereas the petitioner no.10 was regularized on the post of Ward
Clerk and petitioner No.11 was regularized on the post of Peon vide order dated 25.12.2003. On 28.10.2015, information was sought from the
petitioners with regard to regularization of their services and they were given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioners submitted their
reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the orders of regularization of services of the petitioners were
cancelled. As the said order had been passed by the respondent without issuing show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of
hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other connected petitions were filed before this Court and while deciding the said writ petition this
Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the petitioner and directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections
and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise ground on which de-regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be
taken.  Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued show cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause
notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the respondent.
Iin Writ Pletition No.1760/2017, petitioner No.1 was appointed as daily wage employee in the year 1988 and thereafter vide order dated 28.1.2004
his services were regularized on the post of Moharrir. The petitioner No.2 was appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1992 and his services were
regularized on 31.1.2004 on the post of Notice Server in the Revenue Department of the Corporation. The petitioner no.3 was appointed on daily
wage basis in the year 1992 and his services were regularized on the post of Notice Server vide order dated 31.1.2004. The petitioner No.4 was
appointed as daily wage employee in the year 1990 and his services were regularized on the post of Ward Clerk vide order dated 25.12.2003. The
petitioner No.5 was appointed on daily wage basis in 1988 and was regularized on the post of Ward Clerk vide order dated 10.10.2003. The petitioner
No.6 was appointed on daily wage basis in 1991 and vide order dated 25.12.2003 he was regularized in Haka Gang. On 28.10.2015, information was
sought from the petitioner with regard to regularization of their services and they were given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioners
submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the
petitioner was cancelled. As the said order had been passed by the respondent without issuing show cause notice and without giving proper
opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other connected petitions were filed before this Court and while deciding the said
writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the petitioner and directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after
inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise ground on which de-regularisation of the services of the petitioner is
sought to be taken.  Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued show cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said
show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the respondent.
In Writ Petition No.1808/2017 the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1983. Thereafter, there services were regularized
vide order dated 12.1.2004 on the post of Pump Operators. On 28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioners with regard to regularization of
their services and they were given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter,
by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the orders of regularization of services of the petitioners were cancelled. As the said order had been passed by
the respondent without issuing show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other
connected petitions were filed before this Court and while deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services
of the petitioner and directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing
precise ground on which de-regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be taken.  Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued
show cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has
been passed by the respondent.
The petitioners in Writ Petition No.1864/2017 were appointed on daily wage basis on the post of Driver prior to 1988. The services of the
petitioners No.1 to 9 were regularized on the post of Driver vide order dated 16.12.2003. The services of petitioners No.10 & 12 were regularized
on the post of Driver vide order dated 19.1.2004. On 28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioners with regard to regularization of their
services and they were given 3 days’ time to submit explanation.
The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the orders of regularization of
services of the petitioners were cancelled. Petitioner No.11 was appointed on daily wage basis on 31.1.1987 in Fire Brigade Department. The services
of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 28.1.2004. On 28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioner with regard to regularization
of their services and he was given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted his reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by
impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner was cancelled. As the said order had been passed by the
respondent without issuing show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other
connected petitions were filed before this Court and while deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services
of the petitioner and directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing
precise ground on which de-regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be taken.  Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued
show cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017
has been passed by the respondent.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1882/2017 had passed Higher Secondary School examination in the year 1983 and was appointed on daily wage
basis on 19.6.1986 on the post of peon. Thereafter, he was appointed on fixed pay of Class IV in year 1996. The services of the petitioner were
regularized by order dated 25.12.2003 on the post of Peon. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with notice dated 28.10.2015 and information was
sought from the petitioner with regard to regularization of his services and he was given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner
submitted his reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the orders of regularization of services of the
petitioners were cancelled. As the said order had been passed by the respondent without issuing show cause notice and without giving proper
opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other connected petitions were filed before this Court and while deciding the said writ
petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the petitioner and directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting
objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise ground on which de-regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought
to be taken. Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued show cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause
notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the respondent.
The petitioners in Writ Petition No.1939/2017 were appointed as Lower Division Clerk on daily wage basis on 01.1.1989. During the pendency of
Writ Petition No.3460/1994, in which the issue relating to regularization of services of the employees of Municipal Corporation was pending
consideration before High Court, the Corporation took a decision to frame a scheme to regularize the services of the employees who were appointed
prior to 31.12.1988. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.2.2003, inter alia, with the direction that Corporation shall regularize
the services of daily rate employees strictly as per the seniority and eligibility subject to availability of the post. In compliance of the order passed by
High Court, the services of the petitioner No.1 were regularized on the post of Lower Division Clerks vide order dated 12.2.2004. On 28.10.2015,
information was sought from the petitioners with regard to regularization of their services and they were given 3 days’ time to submit explanation.
The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the orders of regularization of
services of the petitioners were cancelled. As the said order had been passed by the respondent without issuing show cause notice and without
giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other connected petitions were filed before this Court and while
deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the petitioner and directed the respondents to prepare
seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise ground on which de-regularisation of the services
of the petitioner is sought to be taken.  Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued show cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner
replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the respondent.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.2194/2017 was appointed as daily wage employee in 1987. Thereafter, he was appointed in fixed pay on the post
of Time Keeper vide order dated 07.12.1995. The petitioner filed W.P.no.4520/1997 claiming regularization on the post. The said writ petition was
disposed of by order dated 17.2.2003 with a direction to consider the case of petitioner for regularization. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.12.2003 the
services of petitioner were regularized on the post of Time Keeper. On 28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioners with regard to
regularization of their services and they were given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated
28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioners was cancelled. As the said
order had been passed by the respondent without issuing show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition
No.20003/2015 along with other connected petitions were filed before this Court and while deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order
of deregularisation of services of the petitioner and directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue
show cause notice containing precise ground on which de-regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be taken.  Thereafter the
respondent-Corporation issued show cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the
impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the respondent.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.2455/2017 was appointed as Daily Wage employee on 01.1.1989 on Class IV post. The petitioner filed Writ
Petition No.3460/1994 seeking regularization of his services. During pendency of aforesaid petition the respondents took policy decision of framing a
scheme to regularize incumbents who are working prior to 31.12.1988. However, no decision was taken with regard to employees working after
01.1.1989. The Writ Petition No.3460/1994 was disposed of on 27.02.2003. Pursuant to decision of High Court the respondent regularized the services
of petitioner on the post of Lineman (Water Department) on 28.1.2004. A show-cause notice dated 28.10.2015 was issued to petitioner. However,
impugned order has been passed by which the order of regularization of services of the petitioner has been cancelled. As the said order had been
passed by the respondent without issuing show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along
with other connected petitions were filed before this Court and while deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of
services of the petitioner and directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice
containing precise ground on which de-regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be taken.  Thereafter the respondent-
Corporation issued show cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order
dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the respondent.
The petitioners in Writ Petition No.2556/2017Â were appointed on daily wage basis on Class IV post prior to 31.12.1988. During the pendency of
Writ Petition No.3460/1994, in which the issue relating to regularization of services of the employees of Municipal Corporation was pending
consideration before High Court, the Corporation took a decision to frame a scheme to regularize the services of the employees who were appointed
prior to 31.12.1988. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.2.2003, inter alia, with the direction that Corporation shall regularize
the services of daily rated employees strictly as per the seniority and eligibility subject to availability of the post. In compliance of the order passed by
High Court, the services of the petitioner No.1 were regularized on the post of Notice Writer, whereas that of respondent No.2 on the post of Pump
Attendant vide order dated 25.12.2003. On 28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioners with regard to regularization of their services and
they were given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order
dated 19.11.2015 the orders of regularization of services of the petitioners were cancelled. As the said order had been passed by the respondent
without issuing show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other connected
petitions were filed before this Court and while deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the
petitioner and directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise
ground on which de-regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be taken.  Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued show
cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has
been passed by the respondent.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3379/2017 was appointed in 1988 on daily wage basis. Thereafter, his services were regularized on 17.9.2003 as
he had passing Typing Test. Thereafter, on 28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioner with regard to regularization of his services and he
was given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted his reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated
19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner was cancelled. As the said order had been passed by the respondent without
issuing show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other connected petitions were
filed before this Court and while deciding the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the petitioner and
directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise ground on
which de-regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be taken.  Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued show cause to the
petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by
the respondent.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3388/2017 were appointed on daily wage basis on the post of Driver prior to 1988. The services of petitioners
were regularized on the post of Driver vide order dated 19.1.2004. On 28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioners with regard to
regularization of their services and they were given 3 days’ time to submit explanation.
The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the orders of regularization of
services of the petitioners were canelled. As the said order had been passed by the respondent without issuing show cause notice and without
giving proper opportunity of hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other connected petitions were filed before this Court and while deciding
the said writ petition this Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the petitioner and directed the respondents to prepare seniority list
after inviting objections and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise ground on which de-regularisation of the services of the
petitioner is sought to be taken. Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued show cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the
said show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the respondent.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.5435/2017 was appointed as daily wage employee on the post of Gas Welder on 01.6.1981. He filed Writ
Petition No.5153/1998 seeking regularization of his services. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 08.2.2001 with a direction to
respondent to consider the case of petitioner for regularization. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Gas Welder
vide order dated 28.5.2003. Thereafter, the aforesaid order was amended on 30.1.2004. On 28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioner
with regard to regularization of his services and he was given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated
28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner from the post of Gas Welder was
cancelled. As the said order had been passed by the respondent without issuing show cause notice and without giving proper opportunity of
hearing, Writ Petition No.20003/2015 along with other connected petitions were filed before this Court and while deciding the said writ petition this
Court set aside the order of deregularisation of services of the petitioner and directed the respondents to prepare seniority list after inviting objections
and thereafter may issue show cause notice containing precise ground on which de-regularisation of the services of the petitioner is sought to be
taken.  Thereafter the respondent-Corporation issued show cause to the petitioner on 03/12/2016. The petitioner replied the said show cause
notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18/01/2017 has been passed by the respondent.
Earlier the petitioners had filed W.P. No.3460/1994 and other connected writ petitions for regularization of their services. During pendency of the
said writ petitions, respondent No.2 has framed a policy to regularise the incumbents working in the Corporation prior to 31/12/1988 and no policy
decision was taken with regard to employees functioning as daily rated employees after 01/01/1989.  The said writ petitions were disposed of vide
common order dated 27/02/2003 with the following directions :
“(a) Respondent Corporation who has already prepared the seniority list of daily rated employees who are working prior to 31st December, 1988
will regularize the services of daily rated employees strictly as per their seniority and eligibility subject to availability of post.
(b) The respondent Corporation has prepared aforesaid seniority list in two heads, technical and non-technical, will be at liberty to fill up the technical
post on availability of technical post from daily rated worker who possesses requisite qualification. If the technical post is not available and the
employees comes in the seniority criteria then respondent corporation will be at liberty to regularize that person even on nontechnical post, if such
employee so chooses or opts such regularisation......â€
In addition to the aforesaid, this Court has also issued directions pertaining to regularization of employees engaged by the corporation after
01/01/1989. The respondent thereafter prepared the seniority list and recommended the cases of the petitioners for regularization.  However,
thereafter without issuing any notice or giving any opportunity of hearing, the respondents had cancelled the order of regularization vide order dated
10/08/2005. The said order was challenged before this Court by the petitioners by filing various writ petitions. This Court vide common order
dated 01/09/2005 has set aside the order dated 10/08/2005 with direction to the respondents to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners. Then again a show cause notice was issued and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the order of
regularization was cancelled on 19/11/2015. The said order was challenged by the petitioners again by filing various writ petitions. The said writ
petitions were allowed by this Court vide common order 24/02/2016. While allowing the said writ petitions, this Court has issued the following
directions in para-36 of the said order which reads as under :
“In view of preceding analysis, the impugned orders of de-regularisation of services of the petitioners dated 19.11.2015 are hereby quashed. The
Corporation may take action for de-regularisation of services of the petitioners, if so advised, in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the
case of Umadevi's (supra) particularly in the light of observations made in paragraph 53 of the decision. Needless to state, the respondentCorporation
shall first prepare the seniority list containing the names of petitioners as directed vide order dated 01.9.2005 passed by a Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No.8359/2005, after inviting objections, and thereafter may issue show-cause notices to the petitioners containing precise grounds, on which,
action of de-regularisation of services of petitioners is sought to be taken. The show-cause notices shall clearly state the documents which the
petitioners, in the opinion of respondent, are required to produce in support of their claim. Needless to state, the respondent-Corporation shall pass
speaking orders.â€
The order passed by Single Bench of this Court was assailed in Writ Appeal No.247/2016 and other connected writ appeals. The Division
Bench of this Court has affirmed the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court and the appeals were dismissed. After the order passed in the
writ appeals, the respondents have published the seniority list on 01/09/2016 thereby inviting the objections from the concerned employees.  The
petitioners have submitted their objections against the said seniority list, however, without considering their objections, the final seniority list was
published.  After publication of seniority list, the respondents have issued a show cause notice dated 03/12/2016 to the petitioners asking them to
submit the documents in respect of their regularization.  The petitioners submitted their reply to the said show cause notice, however, without
considering the reply submitted by the petitioners to the said show cause notices, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 18/01/2017
thereby cancelling the orders of regularization of the petitioners. The impugned order has been passed on the following four grounds :
(i) The roster was not followed at the time of regularizing their services;
(ii) The petitioners do not fulfil the educational qualifications for appointment on the said posts;
(iii) The posts on which the services of the petitioners were regularized, are not vacant;
(iv) As per the seniority list, number of persons who are senior to the petitioners have not been regularized and, therefore, their order of regularization
was contrary to the seniority
list.
Now this Court will first deal with the ground taken by thepetitioners.
Roster :
The first ground on which the respondents have cancelled the order of regularization of the petitioners is that while regularizing their services, the
Corporation has not followed the roster.  Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that it was for the Corporation to follow the roster at the time
of regularizing the services of the petitioners. As the Corporation has failed to follow the roster for which the petitioners cannot be held
responsible. The respondent in their reply has not given the details of the roster which the Corporation has not followed. The only statement has
been made in the order that the posts were reserved for the SC/ST category and as the petitioners do not belonging to the said
category, therefore, their regularization was, itself, illegal.Â
Educational qualification :
The second ground on which the impugned order has been passed is regarding that the petitioners do not fulfil the educational qualifications for
appointment on the said posts. Learned counsel for the petitioners argue that so far as the educational qualifications is concerned, the petitioners
fulfilled the said qualifications. It has further been submitted that the educational qualifications for the post is required to be seen at the time of initial
appointment and not at the stage of regularization. Due to passage of time, the petitioners acquired the experience of the said post, thus, in such
circumstances, the respondent cannot cancel the order of regularization of the petitioners on the ground that they do not fulfil the educational
qualifications. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the cases of Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi
State Mineral Development Corporation, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 361 and Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others Vs. Abahi Kumar and others, reported
in (2001) 3 SCC 328 as well as the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Prabhu Dayal Pandey Vs. M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board
and another, reported in 1998 JLJ 98.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners do not fulfil the educational qualifications for appointment on the said posts,
therefore, their order of regularization has rightly been cancelled. He further submits that mere long continuation of the petitioners would not confer
any right on them to continue.  He relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Punjab Vs. Bahadur Singh and
others, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 737 as well as National Fertilizers Ltd. and others Vs. Somvir Singh, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 493. Â
The Apex Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad (supra) in para-6 has held that once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they
were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground
that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications.  Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others (supra) in
para-6 has held that the selected candidates, who have been appointed, are now in employment as Motor Vehicle Inspectors for over a decade.Â
Now that they have worked in such posts for a long time, necessarily they would have acquired the requisite experience. Lack of experience, if
any, at the time of recruitment is made good now. Therefore, the new exercise ordered by the High Court will only lead to anomalous results. Â
This Court also in the case of Prabhu Dayal Pandey (supra) while relying upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwati
Prasad (supra) has held that want of educational qualification cannot be questioned after long lapse of time, employee gains experience.
So far as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Somvir Singh (supra) is concerned, it would not be
applicable looking to the present scenario of the case because the judgment passed in the case of Bhagwati Prasad (supra) is the judgment passed
by the three Judges Bench while the judgment passed in the case of Somvir Singh (supra) was passed by the Bench of two Judges and the Division
Bench in the case of Somvir Singh (supra) has not considered the judgment passed in the case of Bhagwati Prasad (supra).  Thus, in light of
the aforesaid judgments passed by the Apex Court as the petitioners are working since 1988 and have worked for a considerable passage of time,
therefore, at the time of regularization of their services, the respondents cannot reject their claims on the ground that they did not possess requisite
educational qualifications for appointment on the said posts as due to passage of time, the petitioners have acquired considerable experence for
working on the said posts.
Vacancy :
The third ground on which the impugned order has been passed is that the posts against which the services of the petitioners have been regularized
are not vacant. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as the petitioners are working since 2003 which, itself, shows that the
petitioners are working on the vacant posts. They have been regularly paid the salary also. Thus, as the petitioners are working since 2003,
therefore, it will be presumed that the posts on which the services of the petitioners were regularized are vacant.
Seniority :
The fourth ground on which the impugned order has been passed is that the order of regularization of the petitioners are contrary to the seniority list as
number of persons who are senior the petitioners have been left out for regularization.  In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners argue
that this Court while passing the order on 27/2/2003 has directed the respondentCorporation to prepare the seniority list in two fates, technical and
non-technical and the Corporation was at liberty to fill up the technical posts on availability of technical posts from daily rated workers who possesses
requisite qualifications. Â If the technical post is not available and the employees come in the seniority criteria, then respondent-Corporation will be at
liberty to regularize that persons even on non-tehcnical post, if such employees so choose or opt such regularization. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submit that the said order has attained finality, therefore, it is binding inter se on the parties. In pursuance of the directions issued
by this Court, a seniority list was published and on the basis of the said seniority list, the services of the petitioners were regularized in the year
2003. The said order of regularization was cancelled which was challenged in Writ Petition No.8359/2005 and other connected writ petitions. The
said writ petitions were allowed vide order dated 01/09/2005 and the order of cancellation of regularization was quashed.Â
Thereafter again a show cause notice was issued which has been challenged in Writ Petition No.20609/2015 and other connected writ petitions
and the same were allowed vide common order dated 24/02/2016. The respondent-Corporation has misconceived the order passed by this Court
and although prepared the seniority list of technical and non-technical employees/daily wagers prior to 31/12/1988 and those working from 01/01/1989
and published on 01/09/2016, later on the two lists were clubbed thereby treated unequal to equally.  The petitioners submit that this Court in the
earlier order has directed the respondents to prepare the separate list of technical and non-technical employees, however, the respondents did not
comply with the said order passed by this Court which amounts to contempt.  The petitioners have also submitted that the respondents by passing
the impugned order has unsettled the settled things that too after a span of nearly 14 years.
The respondents, in their reply, has stated that while disposing of Writ Petition No.1464/2001, this Court vide order dated 27/02/2002 has directed
the Corporation to prepare the gradation list of all daily wagers in the following four category :-
(i) Daily wagers on technical posts engaged prior to 31/12/1988.
(ii) Daily wagers on technical posts engaged subsequent to 01/01/1989.
(iii) Daily wagers on non-technical posts engaged prior to 31/12/1988.
(iv) Daily wagers on non-technical posts engaged subsequent to 01/01/1989.
He further submits that initially this Court vide order dated 01/09/2005Â has granted liberty to the Corporation to grant opportunity of hearing as well
as preparation of gradation list of daily wagers and only thereafter issue orders with regard to deregularization of the petitioners. In pursuance of
the directions issued by this Court, the Corporation has prepared the gradation list and passed the order of de-regularization.  However, as the
services of the petitioners have already been regularized, therefore, their names were not included in the said list.Thereafter the orders of de-
regularization were passed which were challenged in Writ Petition No.20003/2015 and other connected writ petitions. By an order dated 19/11/2015
this Court was pleased to set aside the order of de-regularization on the ground that the gradation list was not as per the order passed by this Court in
earlier round of litigation.  Thereafter the Corporation has prepared and published the provisional gradation list of all daily wages workers as on
01/01/2003. The objections were invited from all concerned and a committee of five officers was constituted to scrutinize the objections. After
deciding the objections, the final gradation list was published on 29/10/2016 and in the said list, it has been found that the petitioners have been
regularized in violation of seniority. Various persons who were engaged prior to the petitioners were left out and the petitioners were regularized
ignoring their claim. He further submits that in all the cases it has been found that the seniority has been violated and as per the liberty granted by this
Court, the Corporation has passed the impugned order of deregularization after giving opportunity to the petitioners. It is further submitted that none
of the petitioners have challenged the final gradation list, they have, thus, accepted their position and also accepted the fact that they are much junior
to various persons who were never considered for regularization and this reason is sufficient to justify the impugned order. Once the petitioners have
accepted the aforesaid position, it is no more open to them to challenge the impugned order as aforesaid reason is sufficient to justify the de-
regularization of the petitioners.
This Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No.1464/2001 on 27/02/2002 has directed the Corporation to prepare the separate seniority list on
technical and non-technical post and the Corporation was granted liberty to fill up the technical posts on availability of technical post from daily rated
workers who possesses requisite qualification and if the technical post is not available and the employees come in the seniority criteria, then the
Corporation will be at liberty to regularize that persons even on non-technical posts.  In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioners argue
that the Corporation has not complied with the directions issued by this Court and has prepared common seniority list of technical and non-technical
posts due to which the order of de-regularization has been passed.  For example in the final seniority list of non-technical at page 125 vis-a-vis
page 129 wherein the seniority number of after 130 is 134 whereas the final seniority list of technical employees appearing at page 133 indicated after
seniority list 84, 131, 132 and 133 respectively. However, at page 138 after seniority number 225, the number reflected is 239 i.e. of one of the
petitioners in W.P. No.1551/2017. So far as non-regularization of the persons who are senior to the petitioners is concerned, these persons never
approached this Court for regularization of their service and, therefore, on that count as well as the respondent has failed to prepare the separate
seniority list of technical and non-techincal posts, the order of deregularization could not have been passed on this ground also.
This Court while disposing of Writ Petition No.20003/2017 and other connected writ petitions has directed the respondents to consider the cases of
the petitioners for regularization in light of para-53 of the judgment passed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and
others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Para-53 of the said judgment reads as under :
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.
Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa, and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant
posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of
tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by
this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or
more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now
employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not
subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.
As per this judgment, the Apex Court has directed the Union of India, State Governments and their instrumentalities to take steps to regularize as a
one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of
orders of courts or of tribunals. The Apex Court has further clarified that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be
reopened based on this judgment. Relying upon the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that as the services of the
petitioners have already been regularized in the year 2003, therefoe, as per the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi and
others (supra), their cases are not required to be reopened.Â
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that although the services of the petitioners were regularized in the year 2003,
however, their order of regularization was under clouds in all these years. He further submitted that the appointments of the petitioners were void-
ab-initio as there was no vacant post on which the services of the petitioners were regularized and, therefore, their appointments will be termed as
illegal appointment, thus, the same could not be regularized in terms of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi and others
(supra). He further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Mansukhlal Saraf Vs. Arun Kumar Tiwari & others, reported in
2015 ILR 323 in which this Court has directed the State Government to scrutinize all the appointments and nullify those that have been made illegal,
notwithstanding the number of years these appointments have remained existence.
In the present case, the services of the petitioners were regularized in the year 2003 although the order of regularization of the petitioners were
cancelled by the Corporation, however, the petitioners have challenged those orders before this Court and the order of regularization is in force till the
impugned order has been passed.  As observed earlier, as the petitioners are continuously working since 2003 and they have been paid the salary
of regular employees, therefore, it presumes that the petitioners are working against the vacant posts, thus, the appointments of the petitioners cannot
be said to be an illegal appointment and their services can be regularized in light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi
and others (supra). So far as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mansukhlal Saraf (supra) is concerned, the said judgment
relates to the initial appointment of the daily rated employees and it is not the case of regularization of services of the employees.  Learned
counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the order of de-regularization is a major punishment and, therefore, before de-regularization, an enquiry
ought to have held by the respondent before passing the impugned order.  De-regularization or cancellation of regularization is not a punishment
under Rule 10 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, therefore, no detailed enquiry as prescribed under Rule 14 is
necessary. All that requirement is observance of the principles of natural justice.   Learned counsel for the petitioners further argue that in
earlier round of litigation, this Court has set aside the order of de-regularization on the ground that the grounds which have been spelt out in the said
show cause notices do not found any basis. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that yet again the respondents have cancelled the
regularization of the petitioners for the reasons not spelt out in the show cause notices, therefore, it could not have been a reason for de-
regularization. Â
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order is based on the reasons. In fact, on perusal of the show cause notice and
its comparison with the impugned order would show that the impugned order does not travel beyond the show cause notice. It is submitted that the
impugned order is based on reasons. Show cause notices were very much covered with this aspects. In the present case, the respondents have
issued a cyclostyle show cause notices to the petitioners raising the similar grounds in all the impugned orders. No specific ground for de-
regularization of the services of the petitioners have been mentioned. Thus, the impugned order based on the said show cause notice is liable to be
set aside.
In light of the aforesaid discussions, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 18/01/2017 issued by respondent-Corporation
are hereby set aside. The respondentCorporation is directed to extend the benefit of regular employees to the petitioners in those writ petitions
where there is no interim order passed by this Court.