National Seeds Corporation Ltd @APPELLANT@Hash Satendra Kumar Sheoran

These are cross writ appeals concerning the order dated 13th May, 2013 disposing of S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8764/2012 filed by Satendra Kumar

Sheoran.

Relevant facts to be noted are that Satendra Kumar Sheoran filed the writ petition pleading that having cleared the intermediate examination with

the subject of Agriculture and possessing a certificate of a higher grade course in Agriculture for two years he was appointed as a daily paid worker

and was assigned duties of a Fieldman. This was in March, 1995. He pleaded that the State Farms Corporation of India framed the State Farms

Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations and as per which for the post of Fieldman eligibility initially prescribed was matriculation with higher grade

course in Agriculture of two years duration. He made a grievance concerning an advertisement dated 5.4.2012 as per which the applications were

invited to fill up posts of Assistant (Agriculture) Gr.V, which he claimed was the redesignated post of the Fieldman. Grievance was to qualification of

a Bachelor degree prescribed with 55% marks. He pleaded in the petition that in view of his experience gained over 17 years relaxation in

qualification ought to be granted to him. Since he was not given any relaxation he filed the writ petition praying that direction be issued to relax the

qualification prescribed so as to make him eligible for the post.

The writ petition was opposed on the ground that the Rules did not provide for any relaxation in the educational qualification.

Under an interim order passed the direction issued was to consider Satendra Kumar’s candidature. His candidature was considered. At the

interview he secured only 5 marks out of 30. To bring transparency to the selection process, under different heads marks were to be awarded and

because he did not possess a B.Sc. degree no marks under the head of qualifications were given to him. In that view of the matter he was not placed

in the merit list.

When this fact was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge the writ petition came to be dismissed, but a direction was issued to consider

his candidature for being appointed as an Assistant (Agriculture) Gr.V in view of the law declared by the Constitution Bench in the decision reported

as (2006) 4 SCC 1 Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s Umadevi.

This explains the two appeals.

The State Farms Corporation of India (now National Seeds Corporation Limited) is aggrieved by the direction to consider the respondent’s case

for regularization in view of Umadevi’s case.

Grievance of Satendra Kumar is that the writ petition could not be dismissed without deciding his contention of being granted relaxation in

qualification. Counsel urges that if for qualification marks were prescribed, assigning him ‘0’ marks on account of lack of qualification would

effectively mean no relief being granted.

As regards Satendra Kumar’s case is concerned suffice it to highlight that the Rules did not provide for any relaxation in qualification and since

the Rules did not provide for any relaxation no mandamus could be issued by the Court directing the Corporation to relax the Rules.

Thus there is no merit in the writ appeal filed by Satendra Kumar.

As regards the direction by the learned Single Judge concerning Umadevi’s case, suffice it to state that unless the Court found case made out

as per para 53 in Umadevi’s case no such direction could be issued. In para 53 of the decision in Umadevi’s case it has been held 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 para 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.â€​

Suffice it to state that unless it is found that the initial appointment was irregular i.e. person was qualified and was appointed irregularly against

sanctioned vacant posts than alone the Court could direct consideration for regularization. No such finding being returned by the learned Single Judge

i.e. that when Satendra Kumar was taken as a daily wager there was sanctioned post, no direction could be issued to consider his candidature in light

of Umadevi’s case.

Thus, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 582 / 2013 filed by the Corporation is allowed. D.B. Cros.Obj.Spl.Ap.Writ No. 4 / 2013 filed by Satendra

Kumar Sheoran is dismissed.