Kedar Pandey vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard. Petitioners initially engaged as Supervisors on daily wages under Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Mandla have filed this petition seeking direction to respondents to regularize them on the post on which they are working since 11.05.1986 and 06.12.1985 respectively and grant minimum wages.

In absence of cogent material establishing that the petitioners were engaged in a service after following due procedure of recruitment and that they were engaged against the vacant post, no direction can be given either to regularize them in service or to grant the minimum of the scale.

In Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, , it has been held by their Lordships:--

It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this Court on this aspect. By and large what emerges is that regular recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a contingency can an ad hoc appointment be made in a permanent vacancy, but the same should soon be followed by a regular recruitment and that appointments to non-available posts should not be taken note of for regularization. The cases directing regularization have mainly proceeded on the basis that having permitted the employee to work for some period, he should be absorbed, without really laying down any law to that effect, after discussing the constitutional scheme for public employment.

There have been decisions which have taken the cue from Dharwad case and given directions for regularization, absorption or making permanent, employees engaged or appointed without following the due process or the rules for appointment. The philosophy behind this approach is seen set out in the recent decision in Workmen v. Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. though the legality or validity of such an approach has not been independently examined. But on a survey of authorities, the predominant view is seen to be that such appointments did not confer any right on the appointees and that the Court cannot direct their absorption or regularization or re-engagement or making them permanent.

It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.

In view whereof, in the case at hand in absence of the proof that the petitioners were engaged after following due process of recruitment, no direction for regularization can be given to respondents.

Regarding grant of minimum of scale, incumbent it is upon the petitioners to establish that they were appointed against the vacant post; no such material is brought on record to establish such fact; in absence whereof no relief of direction to respondents to grant minimum of scale can be granted. The decision relied upon by the petitioners in the case of M.P. Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Rudra Prasad Mishra decided on 02.05.2007 in W.A. No. 419/2007 is also of no assistance to the petitioners as no adjudication of the issue raised herein has been rendered vide said order as would have a binding effect. In view whereof petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.