Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rakesh Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2016

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

1. Writ Petition No.20003/2015

Dinesh Kumar Jaatâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

2. Writ Petition No.20110/2015

Ashok Kumar Dubeyâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

3. Writ Petition No.20111/2015

Sushil Shuklaâ¦..â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

4. Writ Petition No.20117/2015

Rustam Khanâ¦..â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents
5. Writ Petition No.20192/2015

Hassan Mehndi..â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

6. Writ Petition No.20196/2015

Dheeraj Prasad Tripathiâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

7. Writ Petition No.20204/2015

Rajulal Patelâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

8. Writ Petition No.20609/2015

Madan Singh Thakurâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents
9. Writ Petition No.20611/2015

Ramraj Kushwahaâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

10. Writ Petition No.20612/2015

Anil Shuklaâ¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

11. Writ Petition No.20614/2015

Lakhan Prasad Senâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

12. Writ Petition No.20655/2015

Vishnu Kant Tripathyâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents
13. Writ Petition No.20726/2015

Ashok Pathakâ¦..â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

14. Writ Petition No.21014/2015

Surendra Kumar Ingwasiaâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

15. Writ Petition No.21015/2015

Sanat Kumar Shuklaâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

16. Writ Petition No.61/2016

Rakesh Shuklaâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

17. Writ Petition No.1495/2016
Amit Yadavâ¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

18. Writ Petition No.1737/2016

Santosh Gautam.â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

19. Writ Petition No.1813/2016

Rakesh Tiwariâ¦.â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents

20. Writ Petition No.1936/2016

Bal Krishna Patelâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦
Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporationâ¦â¦â¦.â¦â¦â¦. Respondents
===================

For the petitioners: Mrs.Shobha
Men
on,
Seni
or
Advo
cate,
Mr.D
.K.Di
xit,
Mr.
Man
oj
Shar
ma,
Mr.S
hash
ank
Shek
har,
Mr.V
ipin
Yada
v,
Mr.N
.P.D
wive
di,
Mr.B
hoop
esh
Tiwa
ri,
Mr.A
shish
Agra
wal,
Mr.D
eepa
k
Sing
h,
Mr.R
ajesh
war
Rao
and
Mr.R
ahul
Chou
bey,
Advo
cates
.

For the respondent: Mr.Anshuman Singh,Advocate.
========================

ORDER

(____.2.2016)

In this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed
the validity of the orders dated 19.11.2015, 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 this bunch of petitions, yet in different
factual scenario, therefore, it is necessary to refer to the
facts of each of the writ petitions, which are stated infra.

2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.20003/2015 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 petitioner was cancelled, which was the
subject matter of challenge in a bunch of writ petition,
which was 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 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 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 de-regularisation of services of
the petitioners have been passed.

3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.20110/2015 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 daysâ 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.

4. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.20111/2015 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 daysâ
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.

5. In Writ Petition No.20117/2015 the petitioner 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 daysâ 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.

6. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.20192/2015 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 daysâ 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.

7. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.20614/2015 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.

8. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.20196/2015 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
âKulgadeâ 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 daysâ 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.

9. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.20204/2015 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
âGadivaanâ 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 daysâ 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.

10. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.21015/2015 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 daysâ 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.

11. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.20609/2015 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 note-sheet, 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 de-
regularization, 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.10260/2012 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
daysâ 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.

12. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.20611/2015 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
daysâ 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.

13. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.20612/2015 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
daysâ 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.

14. In Writ Petition No.21014/2015 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 daysâ 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.

15. In Writ Petition No.20655/2015 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 daysâ 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.

16. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.20726/2015 the
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 daysâ 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.

17. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.61/2016 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 daysâ 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.

18. In Writ Petition No.1495/2016 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 daysâ 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.

19. In Writ Petition No.1737/2016 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 & 11 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 daysâ 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.

20. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.1813/2016 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 daysâ 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.

21. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1936/2016 the
petitioner 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 daysâ 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.

22. Mrs.Shobha Menon, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners submitted that impugned orders directing de-
regularisation of services of petitioner have been passed in
contravention of the order dated 27.2.2003 passed in Writ
Petition No.3460/1994 as well as order dated 01.9.2005
passed in Writ Petition No.8359/2005. It is further
submitted that seniority list was required to be prepared
after inviting objections, which has not been done. It has
also been submitted that cyclostyled orders have been
passed which reflect non-application of mind. It is further
submitted that while passing impugned orders the material
on the basis of which original orders of regularization were
passed, has not been taken into account. It is also
contended that services of the petitioners, who are regular
employees of the respondent-Corporation, cannot be de-
regularized without holding an enquiry. It is urged that
petitioners, have put in more than 12 years of service as
regular employees and, therefore, the Corporation
committed manifest error in un-settling the settled things.
It is further submitted that reasons spelt out in the show-
cause notice do not find place in the impugned orders,
therefore, the same have been passed in violation of
principles of natural justice. While inviting the attention of
this Court to order dated 25.7.2012 passed in
W.P.no.10263/2012 it is submitted that, in fact, no seniority
list was prepared till 2012 and the action of respondents in
de-regularising the services of the petitioners is
contemptuous. It is also submitted that respondents ought
to have taken into account the principle of fair play while
considering the qualification/eligibility while deciding the
question of regularization of services of the petitioners. In
support of her submissions, learned senior counsel has
placed reliance on order dated 30.8.1997 passed in Writ
Petition No.2040/1997 [Prabhudayal Pandey vs. M.P.
State Agricultural Marketing Board and another].

23. Mr.D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that impugned order of de-regualrisation of
services of petitioner is arbitrary as the Supreme Court in
the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4
SCC 1 has held that the services of persons who have been
regularized, cannot be de-regularized.
It is further
submitted that in the case of
U.P. State Electricity Board
vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey and others
[Civil Appeal
No.3765/2001 decided on 09.10.2007] it has been held that
even if Uma Deviâs case is to be applied, the protection
contained in
Article 14
of the Constitution of India cannot
be overlooked and all the petitioners who have rendered
their services for past about 10 years are entitled to the
benefit of regularization.

24. Mr.Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that petitioner No.6 in W.P.No.20726/2015 was
never served with the show-cause notice, but straight away
the impugned order dated 19.11.2015 has been passed.
Thus, the petitioner No.6, in the aforesaid writ petition has
been condemned unheard. It is also submitted that show-
cause notice does not fulfil the requirement of show-cause
and no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to
petitioner as only 3 daysâ time is given by respondent to
the petitioner to show cause. It is further submitted that
action of de-regularisation of services of the petitioners is
vitiated on account of non-preparation of seniority list. It is
also urged that it is nobodyâs case that petitioners are
not entitled for regularization. The only issue which
requires to be adjudicated is, whether they have been
regularized in the order of seniority against the posts
which befit their qualification. It is also submitted that
issue with regard to non-availability of posts, especially
that of not following the reservation and roster, cannot be
made a ground after a decade, as long experience has been
acquired by the petitioners on the post on which they are
regularized and the same takes care of qualification.
In this
connection reference has been made to the decision in the
case of
Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi Mineral
Development Corporation
, (1990) 1 SCC 361. Lastly, it is
urged that the impugned orders have the effect of
unsettling the settled things after a decade by taking
recourse to casual process.

25. Mr.Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that action of respondent
demonstrates pre-determination and prejudice inasmuch as
impugned orders have been passed in utter contravention
of the settled proposition of service jurisprudence. It is
further submitted that administrative decisions are
expected to be taken reasonably and within reasonable
time. In the instant case, the impugned decision has been
taken after a period of 12 years.

25. Mr.Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that letter dated 28.10.2015 purported to be
show-cause notice cannot be termed as âshow-cause
noticeâ as it requires the grounds to be stated, according
to which the action is necessitated, particularly the
penalty/action which is proposed to be taken.
In support of
aforesaid submission he has placed reliance on the decision
in the case of
Gorkha Security Services vs. Government
(NCT of Delhi) and others
, (2014) 9 SCC 105.
While
referring to paragraph 44 of the decision in the case of
Uma Devi (supra) it is contended that if regularization is
already made and is not subjudice, the same need not be
re-opened. Therefore, the impugned orders of de-
regularisation are contrary to the decision in the case of
Uma Deviâs case. It is further submitted that since the
order of regularization has been cancelled after 11 years,
therefore, the same is bad in law.
In support of aforesaid
submission reliance has been placed on the decision in the
cases of
Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others vs. Abahi
Kumar and others
, (2001) 3 SCC 328, Rajendra v. State
of Maharashtra,
AIR 2008 SCW 2877 and Radha Mohan
Goswami vs. State of M.P.
, (2004) 2 MPHT 49.

26. Mr.Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner
in Writ Petition No.1936/2016 and Mr.Deepak Singh,
learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No.61/2016
have adopted the submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioners in other writ petitions.

27. On the other hand, Mr.Anshuman Singh, learned
counsel while opposing the submissions made on behalf of
learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that
impugned orders have been passed in compliance with
principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that it is
well settled in law that principles of natural justice cannot
be put in straight jacket formula and non-observance does
not automatically result in setting aside any administrative
action. It is also submitted that party alleging violation of
principles of natural justice has to show prejudice and has
to demonstrate how the action could have been different if
opportunity would have been granted.
In support of
aforesaid submission reference has been made to decision
of Supreme Court in the cases of
Managing Director,
ECIL v. B. Karunakar
, (
1993) 4 SCC 727 and Dharampal
Satyapal Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central
Excise
, (2015) 8 SCC 519. It is contended that none of the
petitioners have been able to demonstrate as to whether
the post were, in fact, vacant or juniors to them have been
regularized or they fulfil the qualification or that
reservation roster was followed. It is urged that none of the
petitioners have been able to demonstrate prejudice,
therefore, the submission with regard to non-compliance of
principles of natural justice deserves to be rejected. It is
argued by him that contention of petitioners that since
seniority lists have not been prepared, therefore, the
orders with regard to de-regularisation cannot be passed,
also does not deserve acceptance as the respondents have
prepared separate gradation lists for four categories,
namely, daily wagers of technical post engaged prior to
31.12.1988; daily wagers of technical post engaged
subsequent to 01.1.1989; daily wager of non-technical post
engaged prior to 31.12.1988 and daily wager of non-
technical post engaged subsequent to 01.1.1989. It is also
argued that aforesaid gradation lists were prepared as on
01.1.2009. It is submitted that since petitioners were
continuing in regular establishment, therefore, their names
were not mentioned in the aforesaid gradation lists and
they only contain the names of daily wage employees. It is
also urged that contention raised on behalf of petitioners
that even till 2012 the gradation list was not prepared
deserves to be rejected as gradation list was prepared in
the year 2009 itself. It was further argued that respondent-
Corporation was not represented at the time when the
order dated 25.7.2012 was passed, as the said fact could
not brought to the notice of the High Court. It is also
submitted that even non-existence of names of petitioners
in the gradation list is inconsequential as petitioners have
failed to demonstrate any prejudice to them.
It is urged that doctrine of severability applies in respect of
administrative orders as well and in case an order which
contains many reasons, and some reasons are severable
from another, the order can be justified on the basis of
sustainable reasons, notwithstanding that Court may not
agree with the unsustainable reasons.

In this connection,
reference is made to the decision of Supreme Court in the
cases of
P.D.Agrawal vs. State Bank of India
, (
2006) 8
SCC 776 and Krishnakali Tea Estate vs. Akhil
Bharatiya Chah Majdoor Sangh
, (2004) 8 SCC 200. It is
also contended that impugned order of de-regularisation
has been passed on the basis of non-fulfilment of
educational qualification, non-availability of vacant post
and non following of reservation roster and not following
the principle of seniority. The aforesaid grounds are
sufficient to justice the orders of de-regularisation.
It is
further submitted that regularization of services of the
petitioners falls in the category of illegal appointment as
per law
laid down in
the case of Uma Devi (supra) and,
therefore, the respondent is fully justified in de-
regularising the services of the petitioners.
It is also urged
that submission of petitioners that long existing position
cannot be unsettled runs contrary to recent decision of
Division Bench in the case of
Manukhlal Saraf vs. Arun
Kumar Tiwari and others
[W.P.No.198/1999]. It is also
argued that petitioner No.6 in W.P.No.20726/2015 has
been transferred to Municipal Corporation, Satna,
therefore, he has not received any notice or order.
However, aforesaid fact has not been mentioned in the writ
petition. Lastly, it is urged that impugned orders have been
passed on the basis of grounds which are mentioned in the
show-cause notice and in every case there are justifiable
reasons which makes the appointment illegal and which
has its foundation in the show-cause notice. Therefore, the
impugned orders of deregularisation of services of the
petitioners are justified and do not call for any interference
of this Court.

28. I have considered the respective submissions on both
sides. The Supreme Court in the case of
Swadeshi Cotton
Mills vs. Union of India
, AIR 1981 SC 818, while
recognizing the rule of fair play as a necessary concomitant
of principle of natural justice, has held that this rule of fair
play must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional
circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands.
The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal
rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational
modifications.

In
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
, AIR
1978 SC 597 it was held that natural justice is a great
humanizing principle and the soul of natural justice is fair
play in action. It is further held that it is well established
that rules of natural justice are not rigid rules, they are
flexible and their application depends upon the setting and
background of statutory provisions, nature of right, which
may be affected, and the consequences which may entail.
Its application depends upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. The necessary facet of principles of natural
justice before the process of adjudication starts, is that the
authority concerned give to the affected a notice of the
case against him and action proposed to be taken against
him, so that he may adequately defend himself. A notice is
regarded as the minimum obligatory condition. It is the
sine qua non of fair hearing.
[See: East India Commercial
co. Vs. Collector of Customs, AIR 1962 SC 1893 and
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. D.G.(Investigation
and Registration), (2008) 12 SCC 73]. It is equally well
settled principle that notice must be precise and
unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively
of the case he has to meet and should give adequate time.
In the absence of notice of any kind and reasonable
opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated.

[See:
Canara Bank vs. Debasis Das
, (
2003) 4 SCC 557
and Canara Bank vs. V.K.Awasthy
, (2005) 6 SCC 321].
The notice must be effective and must be adequate as
regards the details of the case, so that the noticee gets an
adequate opportunity to represent against the impugned
action. A notice in order to be valid has to fulfil following
two attributes viz. (i) it must be adequate and (ii) it should
fully mention all the grounds, on which, the action is
proposed to be taken against the noticee. The grounds
given in the notice, on which the action is proposed to be
taken, should be couched in clear, specific and
unambiguous terms and not in vague or general terms.

[See: Board of Technical Education, U.P. Vs.
Dhanwantare Kumar, AIR 1991 SC 271]. It is equally well
settled legal proposition that if notice mentions one ground
and the action is taken on some other ground or action is
taken on some additional ground, which is not mentioned
in notice, such notice suffers from vagueness and would
amount to violation of principles of natural justice.
[See:

J.Vilanagandan v. Executive Engineer
,
AIR 1978 SC and
Nasir Ahmed v. Assistant Custodian-General, Evacuee
Property
, AIR 1980 SC 1157]. A hearing to be fair must
fulfil several conditions: (i) The adjudicating authority
should receive all the relevant material which the
individual wishes to produce. (ii) It should disclose all
information, evidence or material which the authority
wishes to use against the individual concerned in arriving
at its decision. (iii) It should give to the individual
concerned an opportunity to rebut such information or
material. Reasonable time should be granted to submit
reply to the show-cause notice. [See: (2008) 13 SCC 689].
It is equally well settled legal proposition that grounds in
the show-cause notice must be ones which are relied on in
the impugned order. Otherwise, the action would be held
to be in violation of principles of natural justice.

[See:

Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab and others
,
(
2001) 6 SCC 261 and CCE Vs. Sheetal International
,
(2011) 1 SCC 109]. The principles of natural justice are
grounded in procedural fairness which ensures taking of
correct decisions and procedural fairness is fundamentally
an instrumental good, in the sense that procedure should
be designed to ensure accurate and appropriate outcomes.

[See:
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd.
(supra)]

29. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal position,
the facts of the cases may be taken note of. Admittedly, the
petitioners had filed writ petitions seeking their
regularization which were disposed of by order dated
27.2.2002 passed in Writ Petition No.1464/2001
[Ramadhar Kushwaha vs. State of M.P. and others]. The
relevant extract of the said order reads as under:-

â4. As the Corporation itself has decided to
regularize the services of employees who are
st
working prior to 31 December, 1988, by which
every employee will get his right according to
his seniority on availability of post and on
fulfilling the eligibility. In the circumstances,
contention of the learned counsel appearing for
the Corporation, that the Corporation is
regularizing the services of employees as per
policy decision which is in the uniform policy, is
accepted and in respect of those employees who
st
are working prior to 31 December,1988,
following directions are issued:-

(a) Respondent Corporation who has already
prepared the seniority list of daily rated
st
employees who are working prior to 31
December, 1988 will regularize the services of
daily rate 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 employee comes in the
seniority criteria then respondent Corporation
will be at liberty to regularize that person even
on non-technical post, if such employee so
chooses or opts such regularization.

(c ) So far as non-technical persons are
concerned, all the daily rated workmen will get
their regularization as soon as the posts become
available as per his seniority and eligibility.

(d) This order will not affect those employees
who have already been regularized because of
the order passed by the High court or by Labour
Court and the aforesaid order has reached its
finality. But so far as the other employees are
concerned, their services will be regularized as
per the direction issued today including those
whose regularization are under challenge before
this Court.

(e) As the employees are to be regularized or
classified on particular post on the availability of
vacant post, as has been held in Full Bench
decision by this Court in
Superintending
Engineer Vs. State of M.P. and others
, [1999 (1)
MPJR 1], in the circumstances, if any litigation
in respect of employee who is working prior to
31-12-1988 or after 1-1-1989 respondent-
Corporation will place this order before the
Labour Court
in that case
and labour courts will
strictly follow the decision of Full Bench
Judgment and directions issued today in this
case.

(f) In respect of those cases in which any junior
person has been regularized ignoring seniority
of other daily rate employees and if presently
the order is under challenge before this Court,
the aforesaid order of regularization by the
labour court stand modified, as per this order.

(g) Those employees who are not satisfied with
their seniority in the seniority list will file fresh
representation before respondent Municipal
Corporation within a period of sixty days from
today and Municipal Corporation will decide the
seniority of those unsatisfied employees within a
period of ninety days thereafter.

(h) So far as the regularization of the employees
working prior to 31-12-1988 are concerned, the
respondent will consider the cases for
regularization as and when the posts are
available strictly according to their seniority.

5. In respect of employees who are engaged
after 1-1-1989 is concerned, following directions
are issued:-

(a) Respondent will prepare a fresh seniority list
of all those employees who are continuously
working in the Corporation and have achieved
the status of permanent workman. This shall be
done within 90 days from today.

(b) The aforesaid list will be duly published by
the Corporation and after considering objections
of the employees, the aforesaid seniority list will
be finalized.

(c ) The respondent Corporation on availability
of post, after exhausting the list of employees
working prior to 31-12-88 will regularize the
services of all those employees strictly in
accordance with their seniority and as per policy
Annexure-R-4.

(d) The policy Annexure R-4 will also be
applicable in respect of employees who are
working after 1.1.89 and have achieved a
permanent status as per provisions of standing
order.

(e) For regularizing the services of workmen
working after 1-1-1989, respondent-Corporation
will also observe the reservation as has been
mentioned in the Policy Annexure R-4 and in
case daily rated employees are available of
reserved quota then respondent will fill up the
aforesaid quota by regularizing the services of
those employees who belongs to reserved
category on priority basis and if any such post
remains vacant then they will follow the
provisions of reservation by the State of M.P.

With the aforesaid directions, the petitions are
finally disposed of.â

30. Thereafter, the services of the petitioners were de-
regularised by order dated 10.8.2005, which was assailed
in a bunch of writ petition, which was disposed of by order
dated 01.9.2005. The relevant extract of the order reads as
under:-

â In these writ petitions an order dated
10.8.2005 has been assailed, by which
regularization of the petitioners has been
cancelled without giving them an opportunity of
hearing. The services of the petitioners were
regularized after they have rendered the service
for consideration period. Order of regularization
was passed after petitioners have rendered the
services for long period, is not in dispute.

Opportunity of hearing has not been afforded, is
also not in dispute. The ground on which the
order of regularization has been cancelled
behind the back of the petitioners is that correct
gradation list was not prepared, as such some of
the incumbents may have been illegally
regularized by the Municipal Corporation,
Jabalpur.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties at
length, in my opinion, the Corporation is not
sure at this stage which of the incumbents have
been wrongly regularized. As the Corporation is
still preparing the gradation list, on the basis of
which it has to be determined by the
Corporation that which of the incumbents were
not entitled for regularization. May be that
seniority list which was earlier prepared was
incorrect, once regularization was made the
petitioners were required to be heard by the
Municipal Corporation before passing order of
deregularisation and in case their case was not
in the seniority of the employees which is the
correct seniority as per the Municipal
Corporation, only
in that case
the order of
regularization should have been cancelled only
in consonance of principle of natural justice
after hearing the petitioners.
Thus, the order dt.
10.8.2005 which has been passed without
hearing the petitioners, without apprising them
of the cause of de-regularisation cannot be
allowed to sustain, once the order of
regularization has been passed after serving for
considerable period, order derogatory to the
interest of civil rights of the employees could
not have been passed without hearing them as
per law
laid down by
the Apex Corut in

Ku.Neelima Mishra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal and
others
, AIR 1990 SC 1402. Thus, the order dt.
10.8.2005 is hereby set aside with liberty to the
Municipal Corporation to prepare the seniority
list, to hear the petitioners and thereafter pass
order of de-regularisation if warranted. There
were Contempt Petition No.70/04 filed, in which,
in accordance with the direction given in the
contempt petition, seniority list has to be
prepared afresh. However, that does not absolve
the Corporation from hearing the petitioners
and passing appropriate order in accordance
with law. Let the seniority list be prepared as
directed in the Contempt Petition.

Writ petitions are allowed to the extent
indicated above. Parties to bear their own
costs.â
(Emphasis supplied)

31. Thereafter, in a bunch of writ petitions, in which
challenge was made to the validity of the show-cause
notice dated 27.8.2011, was disposed of with the following
directions:-

âAs a result, without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the controversy, we dispose of
these petitions with direction to the
Commissioner to decide the matter after
considering the response given by the
petitioners expeditiously by giving due
opportunity to the writ petitioners, in any case,
not later than four weeks from today and
communicate the decision so taken to the
petitioners within the same time. If the decision
is adverse, the petitioners will be free to
challenge the same by say of appropriate
proceedings. That will be decided on its own
merits.

32. It is pertinent to note that Corporation itself had
framed a scheme for regularisation of services of the daily
wage employees and the orders of the regularisation of
services of the petitioners have been passed in the year
2003 i.e. prior t decision in Umadevi'v case (supra). A
comparative chart to indicate the grounds mentioned in the
show-cause notices and in the impugned orders in order to
ascertain whether there is compliance with the principles
of natural justice, is reproduced below:-

Show-cause Impugned
W.P.No. Petitioner Remark
notice order

a) The defence of the petitioner that
services were regularized in clerical

a) Did not cadre and he is performing duties of
have requisite a) Not clerk, and further that services were
qualification possessing regularized against the vacant post of
as he has not requisite Vaccinator to facilitate withdrawal of
passed qualification as salary, has not been considered
Vaccination Exam of
20003 of exam vaccination not
Dinesh Kumar Jaat b) Since case of petitioner was
2015 passed
considered with reference to

b) In seniority gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
list of 9.12.03 b) Seniority and not with reference to gradation
name of principle not list prepared in 2009, in which the
petitioner is at followed name of the petitioner does not
Sr.No.32 appear, therefore, it is not possible to
infer whether principle of seniority
was violated.

a) The fact that on 12.1.2004 no post
of Driver was vacant in general
category not mentioned in the show-

cause notice.

a) Regularised
on post of peon b) In the show-cause notice it is
on 12.1.04 on stated that petitioner had requisite
the said date no qualification whereas in the impugned
Since name of post of driver in order it is stated that petitioner had
petitioner in general not filed any document to show-cause
seniority list of category was that he had the requisite qualification.
09.12.03 at vacant However, the requisite qualification
20110 of
Ashok Kumar Dubey Sr.No.11, has neither been prescribed in the
therefore, show-cause notice nor in the

b) No document
principle of impugned order.

for qualification
seniority not
filed
followed

c) Since case of petitioner was
considered with reference to

c) Seniority
gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
principle was
and not with reference to gradation
not followed
list prepared in 2009, in which the
name of the petitioner does not
appear, therefore, it is not possible to
infer whether principle of seniority
was violated.

a) The fact that no post of peon was
vacant in general category was not
mentioned in the show-cause notice.
However, the same finds in the
impugned order.

a) Regularised a) Post of peon
on 12.1.04 in general
against post of category was b) In the show-cause notice it is
peon not vacant stated that the petitioner has the

requisite qualification, whereas in the
impugned order it is stated that no

b) Name in b) No document document with regard to educational
20111of
Sushil Shukla seniority list of for educational qualification filed by the petitioner.
09.12.03 at qualification
Sr.no.49, was filed
therefore, c) Since case of petitioner was
seniority considered with reference to
c) Seniority gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
principle not principle was
followed and not with reference to gradation
not followed list prepared in 2009, in which the
name of the petitioner does not

appear, therefore, it is not possible to
infer whether principle of seniority
was violated.

a) The fact that post of Gas Welder
was not vacant, not mentioned in the
show-cause notice.

a) Regularised a) Post of Gas
on 28.5.03 Welder was not b) The defence of the petitioner that
vacant in case the order of de-regularisation

is passed the same would tantamount

b) Regularised to violation of order dated 27.02.2002
as Gas Welder b) Educational passed in Writ Petition No.1464/2001,
on which date qualification has not been considered.

there were document not
vacant posts filed in respect
20117 (1-ST, 1- OBC, post of Gas
of Rustam Khan 2-UR) Welder

c) The petitioner was not required by
2015 show-cause notice to file any
document with regard to his
educational qualification.

c) Since c) Principle of
seniority not
passed 7th did followed as his d) Since case of petitioner was
not have name appears considered with reference to
requisite at Sr.no.09 of gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
qualification of seniority list and not with reference to gradation
ITI Diploma dt.09.12.03 list prepared in 2009, in which the
name of the petitioner does not

appear, therefore, it is not possible to
infer whether principle of seniority
was violated.

a) Since case of petitioner was
considered with reference to

a) Relevant gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003

a) Regularised time post of and not with reference to gradation
on 12.1.04 as OBC peon was list prepared in 2009, in which the
peon not vacant name of the petitioner does not
appear, therefore, it is not possible to
infer whether principle of seniority

b) Principle of b) No document was violated.
seniority was for qualification
20192 not followed filed alongwith
of Hasan Mehndi while reply b) The fact that no post of peon
2015 regularizing belonging to OBC category was
the petitioner vacant was not mentioned in the

c) Seniority show-cause notice.

since his name principle was
was at not followed as
sr.no.38 of his name was at c) The fact that petitioner did not
seniority list sr.no.11 of have the requisite qualification was
dt.09.12.03 seniority list not mentioned in the show-cause
dt.09.12.03 notice, whereas the same was made

the ground for passing the impugned
order of de-regularisation.

a) Since case of petitioner was

a) Regularised a) He was not considered with reference to
on 28.1.04 entitled for gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
against post of being and not with reference to gradation
Lineman regularisation list prepared in 2009, in which the
on the date of name of the petitioner does not
regularisation appear, therefore, it is not possible to

b) His name on the post of infer whether principle of seniority
does not find Lineman (OBC) was violated.
place in
seniority list
dt. 09.12.03. b) Since name b) In the show-cause notice it is
does not find stated that educational qualification
place in
20614of c) He is higher seniority list dt. for the post in question was 8th pass,
Lakhan Prasad Sen whereas the petitioner has passed
2015 secondary 09.12.03,
whereas therefore, Higher Secondary Examination,
requisite seniority list not therefore, the conclusion in the
qualification is followed impugned order that petitioner did
not have the requisite qualification is
8th pass and perverse and further the same suffers
experience c) He has not from vice of non-application of mind.

filed document
to show that he

d) He is not possessed c) In the absence of any seniority list
found requisite prepared in pursuance of direction of
appointed as qualification this Court in Writ Petition
daily wage and experience No.8565/2005 it cannot be said that
employee for Lineman petitioner was not entitled for
regularization on the post of Lineman.

a) From the order of regularization of
the petitioner it is evident that
petitioner was regularized as
âKulgade Chowkidarâ, whereas
the conclusion with regard to non-

availability of post has been arrived

a) He has not on record with reference to the post
filed any of Bullock Shed Watchman, which is
document unsustainable.

a) Regularised indicating that
on 12.1.04 on he was entitled
post of Bullock b) Since case of petitioner was
to be
Shed considered with reference to
regularized on
Chowkidar on gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
the date of
which 2 posts and not with reference to gradation
regularisation
were vacant list prepared in 2009, in which the
on the post of
(1-ST, 1-UR) name of the petitioner does not
Bullock shed

appear, therefore, it is not possible to
chowkidar
infer whether principle of seniority

b) His name was violated.

20196 was at b) His name
Dheeraj Prasad sr.no.169 in
of was at
Tripathi seniority list c) The defence of the petitioner with
2015 Sr.No.169 of
dt.09.12.03 regard to educational qualification
seniority list dt.
that at the relevant time the
09.12.03

candidate should have passed Class

c) Requisite Vth examination for appointment on
qualification of c) He did not the post against Class IV was not
file any considered in the impugned order.
8th pass did
document in
not possess as
respect of
petitioner has
possessing
passed Class
requisite d) The petitioner was not asked to
7th qualification for furnish any document with regard to
post of his educational qualification by the
Bullockshed show-cause notice, whereas in the
chowkidar impugned order an inference has
been drawn against the petitioner
that he does not possess the requisite
qualification merely on the ground
that petitioner failed to annex any
document with regard to his
educational qualification.

a) Petitioner not
found to be
appointed on
daily wage basis

a) Petitioner
(OBC)
regularized on b) He has not a) The defence of the petitioner was
12.1.04 as filed document not considered.

Gadivaan on indicating that
which date 1 he was entitled
post of ST to be b) The show-cause notice does not
category was regularized on mention that petitioner was never
20204 vacant the date of regularized and not asked to produce
of Rajulal Patel regularisation document of educational qualification.
2015 on the post of
b) Since
Gadivaan
petitioner is c) In the show-cause notice it is not

required to show that petitioner was
4th pass,

c) He did not not entitled to be regularized on the
therefore, did
file any post of âGaadivanâ on the date of
not possess
document regularization.

requisite
showing
qualification of
possession of
Class 8th
requisite
qualification for
the post of
Gadivaan

a) No post in
unreserved
category of Vin
Card Attendant

a) Regularised was vacant

a) Since case of petitioner was
on 12.1.04 on
considered with reference to
post of Vin

b) Name of gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
Card
petitioner finds and not with reference to gradation
Attendant, on
place at list prepared in 2009, in which the
which date, 1
sr.no.15, name of the petitioner does not
post under ST
therefore, appear, therefore, it is not possible to
category was
principle of infer whether principle of seniority
21015 vacant
seniority list was violated.

of Sanat Kumar Shukla
was followed
b) His

b) The fact that principle of seniority
educational

c) He did not was not followed, was not mentioned
qualification is
file any in the show-cause notice.

8th whereas document to
requisite show that on
c) The defence with regard to
qualification date of

educational qualification has not been
was Higher regularisation
considered.

Secondary he possess
requisite
qualification for
Vin Cart
Attendant

a) The note-sheet dated 22.4.2003,
pursuant to which, the order of
regularization was passed, was not
considered while concluding that no
post of Sub Engineer belonging to
general category was vacant.

a) On 28.5.03 a) No post of
i.e. date of general b) Since case of petitioner was
regularisation category of Sub considered with reference to
as Sub- engineer was gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
Engineer, 2 vacant on date and not with reference to gradation
Madan Singh Thakur of
posts (1-SC & list prepared in 2009, in which the
(Petitioner No.1) regularisation
1-ST) were name of the petitioner does not
vacant and no appear, therefore, it is not possible to
post of general b) Principles of infer whether principle of seniority
category was seniority not was violated.
vacant followed

c) In the show-cause notice it was not
mentioned that regularization of
petitioners has been made in violation
of principles of seniority. However,
the same has been made a ground for
passing the impugned order

a) The note-sheet dated 22.4.2003,
pursuant to which, the order of
regularization was passed, was not
considered while concluding that no
post of Sub Engineer belonging to
general category was vacant.

On 1.10.03 i.e. a) No post of
date of general b) Since case of petitioner was
regularisation category of Sub considered with reference to
as Sub- engineer was gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
Engineer, 2 vacant on date and not with reference to gradation
20609 Vijay Kumar Dubey of
posts (1-SC & list prepared in 2009, in which the
of (Petitioner No.2) regularisation
1-ST) were name of the petitioner does not
vacant and no appear, therefore, it is not possible to
post of general b) Principles of infer whether principle of seniority
category was seniority not was violated.
vacant followed

c) In the show-cause notice it was not
mentioned that regularization of
petitioners has been made in violation
of principles of seniority. However,
the same has been made a ground for
passing the impugned order

a) On 15.11.03

a) The note-sheet dated 22.4.2003,
i.e. date of
pursuant to which, the order of
regularisation
regularization was passed, was not
as Sub-

considered while concluding that no
Engineer, 2
post of Sub Engineer belonging to
posts (1-SC &
general category was vacant.

1-ST) were
vacant and no a) No post of
post of general general b) Since case of petitioner was
category was category of Sub considered with reference to
vacant engineer was gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
vacant on date and not with reference to gradation
Anurag Pathak of list prepared in 2009, in which the
(Petitioner No.3) b) No regularisation name of the petitioner does not
reservation

appear, therefore, it is not possible to
roster was

b) Principles of infer whether principle of seniority
followed while
seniority not was violated.

regularizing
followed

c) In the show-cause notice it was not

c) On date of
mentioned that regularization of
appointment
petitioners has been made in violation
as daily wage
of principles of seniority. However,
employee he
the same has been made a ground for
was 17 years
passing the impugned order
of age

a) The petitioner in his reply has
made a reference to note-sheet dated
12.1.1996 of Commissioner to point
out that 7 posts were vacant.

a) He did not However, the aforesaid fact has not
filed document been considered while recording the
in his reply to conclusion that no post of Notice
indicate that on Writer was vacant at the time when
date of the services of the petitioner were
regularisation regularized.

On date of the post of
regularisation Notice Writer,
on the post of such post under b) Since case of petitioner was
Notice Writer OBC category considered with reference to
Ramraj Kushwaha
i.e. on was vacant gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
(Petitioner No.1)
25.12.03 only and not with reference to gradation
1 post in ST list prepared in 2009, in which the
category was b) His name name of the petitioner does not
vacant was at sr.no.28 appear, therefore, it is not possible to
of seniority list infer whether principle of seniority
09.12.03, was violated.
therefore,
seniority
principle not c) The show-cause notice does not
followed mention that seniority principle was

not followed. Therefore, the order of
de-regularisation has been passed on
the ground, which was not mentioned
in the show-cause notice.

a) No post of
Pump Attendant a) In the show-cause notice it is not
20611of (general) was stated that post of Pump Attendant
2015 vacant on date was not vacant. However, in the
of impugned order a ground has been
regularisation taken that at the time of
i.e. 25.12.03 as regularization of services of the
his name was at petitioner the post of Pump Attendant

a) Regularised Sr.No.45 of was not vacant.

on 25.12.03 as seniority list of
Pump illiterates
Attendant b) Since the case of petitioner was
considered with reference to
b) Since his gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
b) His name was at and not with reference to gradation
qualification sr.No.45 of list prepared in 2009, in which the
was indicated seniority list name of the petitioner does not
Kailash Singh relating to
as Nil whereas appear, therefore, it is not possible to
Chouhan illiterates and
requisite infer whether principle of seniority
(Petitioner No.2) persons below
qualification was violated.
for the post 8th standard,
was ITI therefore, no
Diploma c) The petitioner in his reply had
seniority referred to resolution dated
principle 31.1.1994 passed by the Municipal
c) Roster followed Corporation, by which, it was
reservation provided that requirement of passing
not followed c) No document ITI Examination shall be relaxed in
has been filed case of Pump Attendant who has
to show that he rendered 10 years of service. The
possessed petitioner had already rendered more
requisite than 12 years of service. However,
qualifidation for the aforesaid aspect of the matter was
pump attendant not considered while passing the
on date of impugned order.
regularization

a) Regularised
as Clerk on
12.2.04 a) The fact that no post of L.D.C. was
vacant, was not mentioned in the
a) No vacant show-cause notice. However, the
b) 09.12.03 his
post of Clerk in impugned order of de-regularisation
name was not
general has been passed on the ground that
in seniority list
category on no post was vacant at the time when
date of regularization was made. The order of
c) He is B.A. regularisation. de-regularisation has been passed on
pass, whereas the ground not mentioned in the
requisite show-cause notice.
qualification is b) His name is
Anil Shukla Higher not in Seniority

list dt. 09.12.03. b) Reply of petitioner to the show-
(Petitioner No.1) Secondary and
He filed cause notice was considered.

Typing Exam
Pass appointment
order dt. c) Since the case of petitioners was
19.8.99, considered with reference to
d) No therefore, his gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
reservation regularisatin is and not with reference to gradation
roster followed against list prepared in 2009, in which the
principle of name of the petitioner does not
seniority appear, therefore, it is not possible to
e) He is not
found infer whether principle of seniority
appointed on was violated.
daily wage
basis

20612of a) Regularised
2015 as Clerk on
12.2.04

a) The fact that no post of L.D.C. was

b) On 09.12.03 vacant, was not mentioned in the
his name was a) No vacant show-cause notice. However, the
not in seniority post of Clerk in impugned order of de-regularisation
list general has been passed on the ground that
category on no post was vacant at the time when
date of regularization was made. The order of

c) He has de-regularisation has been passed on
passed Higher regularisation.

the ground not mentioned in the
Secondary, show-cause notice.
whereas b) His name is
requisite not in Seniority
Manoj Tiwari

qualification is list dt. 09.12.03. b) Reply of petitioner to the show-
(Petitioner No.2)
Higher He filed cause notice was considered.

Secondary and appointment
Typing Exam order dt.
Pass c) Since the case of petitioners was
19.8.99, considered with reference to
therefore, his gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
d) No regularisatin is and not with reference to gradation
reservation against list prepared in 2009, in which the
roster followed principle of name of the petitioner does not
seniority appear, therefore, it is not possible to

infer whether principle of seniority

e) He is not was violated.

found
appointed on
daily wage
basis

a) The petitioner had referred to in

a) Regularised a) No document
the reply about the resolution dated
on 10.10.03 as filed with reply
24.3.1988 passed by the Municipal
Clerk indicating that
Corporation by which 100 posts of
(General). on the date of
Ward Clerks were created and the
Total 6 posts regularisation
matter was forwarded to the State
(3-ST, 2-SC, 1 the post of
Government for approval, which was
& A.Ja.Vi.-1) Wark Clerk
also granted on 12.3.1997. However,
were vacant (General) was
the aforesaid fact in the reply has not
on date of vacant.

been considered while passing the
regularistion impugned order.

but not of b) His name in
general seniority list
category b) The principles of seniority has been
dt.09.12.03,
Surendra Ingwasia violated, has not been mentioned in
therefore,
(Petitioner No.1) the show-cause notice, therefore, the
b) He is seniority

order has been passed on the ground
B.Com. principle not
not mentioned in the show-cause
whereas followed while
notice.

requisite regularisation
qualification is
Higher c) While recording conclusion in the
c) He has not
Secondary and impugned order, the petitioner had
filed document
Typing, not passed Hindi Typing Test, the
indicating that
therefore, he defence of the petitioner has not been
he passed
did not considered that since he was more
B.Com. He had
possess than 40 years of age, therefore, under
not passed
requisite circular of the State Government
Hindi Typing
qualification dated 15.11.1984, he was not
Test

required to pass Hindi Typing Test.

a) Regularised
on 10.10.03 as
Clerk
(General).

Total 6 posts
(3-ST, 2-SC, 1

a) He has not a) The petitioner had referred to in
& A.Ja.Vi.-1)
filed any the reply about the resolution dated
were vacant
document 24.3.1988 passed by the Municipal
on date of
indicating that Corporation by which 100 posts of
regularistion
post of Ward Ward Clerks were created and the
but not of
Clerk (General) matter was forwarded to the State
general
was vacant on Government for approval, which was
category
10.10.03. also granted on 12.3.1997. However,
the aforesaid fact in the reply has not

b) He is been considered while passing the

b) His name in impugned order.

Higher
seniority list
Secondary,
was at sr.no.

whereas
284, therefore, b) The principle of seniority was not
Kapil Anand Dubey requisite
seniority was followed while regualrisation, was not
(Petitioner No.2) qualification is
not followed mentioned in the show-cause notice.
Higher
However, the same was made the
Secondary and
ground in the impugned order.
Typing, c) Not filed any
therefore, he document
did not indicating that c) The petitioner was not asked to
possess on date of submit the document with regard to
requisite regularisation his educational qualification.
qualification he possessed However, inference has been drawn
qualification of that since the petitioner has not
Higher produced the document with regard
c) No
Secondary and to his educational qualification,
Reservation
Hindi typing therefore, he does not possess the
roster followed
pass same.
d) Since
appointee
after 31.12.88,
therefore, not
entitled for
regularisation

a) He was not
found appointed
on daily wage
basis. He did a) The fact that petitioner did not
not file possess educational qualification, was
document to not mentioned in the show-cause
a) Regularised show that on notice. However, the impugned order
as Pump date of has been passed on the ground that
Attendant of regularisation petitioner does not possess the
general post of Pump requisite qualification for the post of
category on Attendant Pump Attendant.
which 7 posts (General) was
of other vacant.

b) The services of the petitioner were
categories
regularized on 12.1.2004. The
were vacant.

b) Document impugned order has been passed on

b) His name
not filed the ground that petitioner has failed
was not in
indicating on to show that he was entitled for
Manoj Kumar Sharma seniority list of
date of regularization. In fact, the
(Petitioner No.3) 09.12.03
regularisation respondent-Corporation should have

c) He is Class
he was working mentioned as to on what grounds the
VIII passed,
as daily wage petitioner was not entitled for
whereas
employee and regularization.

requisite
his name was
qualification
not in seniority
was ITI c) Since the case of petitioner was
list dt. 09.12.03
diploma considered with reference to

d) Not found gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
appointed as c) Not filed and not with reference to gradation
daily wage document list prepared in 2009, in which the
employee showing name of the petitioner does not
possessing of appear, therefore, it is not possible to
requisite infer whether principle of seniority
qualification of was violated.

Pump Attendant
on date of
regularisation

a) Document
not filed a) The fact that petitioner did not
showing possess educational qualification, was
entitlement for not mentioned in the show-cause

a) Regularised regularisation notice. However, the impugned order
as Pump as Pump has been passed on the ground that
Attendant of Attendant petitioner does not possess the
general (General). His requisite qualification for the post of
category on name was not Pump Attendant.

which date 7 seniority list.
posts of other

b) The services of the petitioner were
categories

b) Name not regularized on 12.1.2004. The
were vacant.

found in impugned order has been passed on

b) His name
seniority list dt. the ground that petitioner has failed
was not in
09.12.03. to show that he was entitled for
Deepak Khatri seniority list of
Document not regularization. In fact, the
(Petitioner No.4) 09.12.03
filed showing respondent-Corporation should have

c) He is Class
working as daily mentioned as to on what grounds the
VIII passed,
wager on date petitioner was not entitled for
whereas
of regularization.

requisite
regularisation
qualification
was ITI c) Since the case of petitioner was
diploma c) Not filed considered with reference to

d) Not found document gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
appointed as showing and not with reference to gradation
daily wage possessing of list prepared in 2009, in which the
employee requisite name of the petitioner does not
qualification of appear, therefore, it is not possible to
Pump Attendant infer whether principle of seniority
on date of was violated.

regularisation

a) No post of a) The fact that petitioner did not
Pump Attendant possess educational qualification, was

a) He was (OBC) vacant not mentioned in the show-cause
regularized as on date of notice. However, the impugned order
Pump regularisation. has been passed on the ground that
Attendant Document not petitioner does not possess the
(OBC) on filed by requisite qualification for the post of
12.1.04. petitioner in Pump Attendant.

this regard.

b) His name b) The services of the petitioner were
was not in b) Name not in regularized on 12.1.2004. The
seniority list seniority list dt. impugned order has been passed on
dt. 09.12.2003 09.12.03 and the ground that petitioner has failed
Ghanshyam document not to show that he was entitled for
Vishwakarma filed showing regularization. In fact, the
(Petitioner No.5) c) He is working as daily respondent-Corporation should have
Higher wager on date mentioned as to on what grounds the
Secondary of petitioner was not entitled for
passed, regularisation regularization.
whereas
requisite
qualification c) Not filed c) Since the case of petitioner was
was ITI document considered with reference to
diploma showing gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003

d) Not found possessing of and not with reference to gradation
appointed as requisite list prepared in 2009, in which the
daily wage qualification of name of the petitioner does not
employe Pump Attendant appear, therefore, it is not possible to
on date of infer whether principle of seniority
regularisation was violated.

a) Did not file
document with
reply indicating a) The fact that petitioner did not

a) Regularised his entitlement possess educational qualification, was
as peon in for not mentioned in the show-cause
general regularisation notice. However, the impugned order
category on on the post of has been passed on the ground that
21014of 12.1.04. peon in general petitioner does not possess the
2015 b) His name category. His requisite qualification for the post of
was not in name was not in Pump Attendant.

seniority list seniority list
dt.09.12.03 and found not
c) His is appointed on b) The services of the petitioner were

Higher daily wage regularized on 12.1.2004. The
Secondary basis. impugned order has been passed on
whereas the ground that petitioner has failed
(Omkar Prasad requisite to show that he was entitled for
Mishra) qualification b) Name not in regularization. In fact, the
Petitioner No.6 seniority list dt. respondent-Corporation should have
was 8th pass 09.12.03 and mentioned as to on what grounds the
and as such he document not petitioner was not entitled for
did not filed showing regularization.

possess the working as daily
same. wager on date
of c) Since the case of petitioner was
regularisation. considered with reference to
d) Reservation
c) Document gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
roster not
not filed and not with reference to gradation
followed.
showing that he list prepared in 2009, in which the
e) Not
possessed name of the petitioner does not
appointed as
requisite appear, therefore, it is not possible to
daily wage
qualification for infer whether principle of seniority
employee
being was violated.
regularized as
peon (general).

a) The fact that petitioner did not
possess educational qualification, was
not mentioned in the show-cause

a) Regularised notice. However, the impugned order
as Vaccinator a) His has been passed on the ground that
(General). regularisation petitioner does not possess requisite
was on post of qualification for the post of Pump
Vaccinator Attendant.

b) His name (General) dated
was not in Nil, which
seniority list. indicates that b) The services of the petitioner were

no order was regularized on 12.1.2004. The
passed. impugned order has been passed on

c) He is the ground that petitioner has failed
Higher to show that he was entitled for
Secondary, b) No document regularization. In fact, the
whereas filed showing respondent-Corporation should have
Akhilesh Mishra requisite that on date of mentioned as to on what grounds the
(Petitioner No.7) qualification is regularisation petitioner was not entitled for
passing he was working regularization.

Vaccination on daily wage
Exam, basis. His name
therefore, did was not in c) Since the case of petitioner was
not possess seniority list dt. considered with reference to

requisite 09.12.03. gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
qualification c) No document and not with reference to gradation
filed showing list prepared in 2009, in which the
requisite name of the petitioner does not

d) He is not qualification for appear, therefore, it is not possible to
found being infer whether principle of seniority
appointed on regularized as was violated.

daily wage Vaccinator
basis.

d) The petitioner was not asked to
produce the document with regard to
his educational qualification

a) His a) The conclusion that petitionerâs

a) Regularised regularisation regularization was contrary to the
as Vaccinator was on post of rules, is in contravention of the
(General) Vaccinator grounds taken in the show-cause
(General) dated notice.

Nil, which
b) His name indicates that
was not in no order was b) Since the case of petitioner was
seniority list passed. considered with reference to
dt.09.12.03 b) No document gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
filed showing and not with reference to gradation
that on date of list prepared in 2009, in which the
c) He is higher regularisation name of the petitioner does not
Atul Anand Dubey secondary, he was working appear, therefore, it is not possible to
(Petitioner No.8 whereas on daily wage infer whether principle of seniority
requisite basis. His name was violated.
qualification was not in
was seniority list dt.

Vaccination 09.12.03. c) The petitioner was not asked to
Exam Pass produce the document with regard to
his educational qualification

c) No document

d) He was not filed showing
found requisite d) No explanation, worth the name,
appointed on qualification for was offered by the Corporation to
daily wage being show if the petitioner was not
basis regularized as appointed on daily wage basis, then
Vaccinator how his services were regularized.

a) He was a) No document
regularized on filed indicating
25.12.03 on that on date of
Ward regularisation
Supervisor post of Ward
(Promotional Supervisor in
Post), on general a) Since the case of petitioner was
which date category was considered with reference to
post was not vacant. gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
vacant. b) His name and not with reference to gradation
was at list prepared in 2009, in which the
sr.no.175 of name of the petitioner does not
Umashankar Tiwari b) He was not seniority list appear, therefore, it is not possible to
(Petitioner No.9) entitled for dt.09.12.03, infer whether principle of seniority
regularisation therefore, was violated.
on seniority was
promotional not followed.
post b) The petitioner was not asked to

produce the document with regard to

c) No document his educational qualification.

c) He was filed indicating
appointed possessing of
after 31.12.88, requisite
therefore, not qualification on
entitled for the date of
regularisation regularisation

a) Regularised
as Ward Clerk

a) The petitioner had referred to in
(General),
the reply about the resolution dated
whereas on a) Not filed 24.3.1988 passed by the Municipal
such date 6 document in Corporation by which 100 posts of
posts of other reply showing Ward Clerks were created and the
categories that on date of matter was forwarded to the State
were vacant. regularisation Government for approval, which was
i.e. 25.12.03 also granted on 12.3.1997. However,
post of Ward the aforesaid fact in the reply has not

b) He is
Clerk (general) been considered while passing the
Higher
was vacant impugned order.

Secondary,

b) His name at
whereas
sr.no.125 of
requisite
Rahul Anand Dubey seniority list b) Since the case of petitioner was
qualification is
(Petitioner No.10) dt.09.12.03. considered with reference to
Higher
His age was 12 gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
Secondary and
years on date of and not with reference to gradation
Typing Pass,
appointment. list prepared in 2009, in which the
therefore, do

c) Did not file name of the petitioner does not
not possess
document in appear, therefore, it is not possible to
same
reply showing infer whether principle of seniority
possessing of was violated.

c) He was 12 requisite
years of age qualification on
date of c) The petitioner in the show-cause
on appointing
regularisation notice was not asked to produce the
date as daily
document with regard to his
wage
educational qualification.
employee ie.
31.12.88

a) Being of OBC
his name in
a) Regularised
sr.no.369 and,
as Peon (OBC)
therefore, on
on 25.12.03.
date of a) The fact that no post of peon was
regularisation vacant, was not mentioned in the
b) In seniority as peon on show-cause notice.
list dt. 25.12.03, no
09.12.03 his post of OBC
name was at was vacant. b) Since the case of petitioner was
sr.no.369, considered with reference to
therefore, gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
seniority and not with reference to gradation
principle not b) No document list prepared in 2009, in which the
Zaleel Ahmad followed while filed with reply name of the petitioner does not
(Petitioner No.11) regularisation showing his appear, therefore, it is not possible to
regularisation infer whether principle of seniority
was valid even was violated.
c) Reservation
if seniority was
Roster not
not followed. c) The fact that petitioner does not
followed

possess educational qualification was

c) No document not mentioned in the show-cause

d) Daily wage notice, yet the same is made the
filed showing
appointee ground for passing the order of de-

possessing of
after 31.12.88, regularisation.

requisite
therefore, not
qualification for
entitled for
post of peon on
regularisation
the date of
regularisation

a) On 25.12.03
no post of peon
(general) was
vacant and no
document filed
in this regard in

a) Regularised a) The fact that no post was vacant,
reply.

on 25.12.03 as was not mentioned in the show-cause
Peon notice, yet the same was made the
(General). b) Since his ground for passing the order of de-

name at regularisation.
sr.no.241 of
b) His name in
seniority list dt.
seniority list b) Since the case of petitioner was
09.12.03,
dt. 09.12.03 considered with reference to
therefore,
was at gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
seniority was
sr.no.241, and not with reference to gradation
not followed.
20655of therefore, list prepared in 2009, in which the
Vishnu Kant Tripathy He did not file
2015 while name of the petitioner does not
document that
regularisation appear, therefore, it is not possible to
his
no seniority infer whether principle of seniority
regularisation
principle was was violated.
without
followed
following
seniority was c) The fact that petitioner does not
c) He possess valid. possess educational qualification, was
requisite not mentioned in the show-cause
qualification notice, yet the same is made the
c) No document
for the post in ground for passing the order of de-
filed showing
question regularisation.
that he did not
possess
requisite
qualification on
date of
regularisation

a) Regularisd
on 28.1.04 as
Moharrir on a) On date of
which date regularisation
only 2 posts of no post of
ST were Moharrir
vacant (General) was
vacant and no

Ta) The fact that no post of Moharrir
document filed
belonging to general category was

b) His name in reply by
vacant, was not mentioned in the
was at petitioner in
show-cause notice, yet the same was
seniority list this regard
made the ground for passing the
dt. 09.12.03 at
order of de-regularisation of services
sr.no.147,

b) In seniority of petitioner.

therefore,
principle of list of 09.12.03
Ashok Pathak his name was at
(Petitioner No.1) seniority was b) Since the case of petitioner was
not followed sr.no.147,
considered with reference to
therefore,

gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
seniority
and not with reference to gradation

c) No principle not
list prepared in 2009, in which the
reservation followed. No
name of the petitioner does not
roster was document filed
appear, therefore, it is not possible to
followed with reply
infer whether principle of seniority
showing that
was violated.

his
d) Since he regularistion
was Higher without
secondary, following
therefore, seniority was
possessed valid
requisite
qualification

a) Regularised
a) He was
as Notice
regularized
Server
on31.1.04 as
(General) on
Notice Server,
31.1.04.
whereas in note
sheet there is
b) His name mention of
was at regularisation a) The fact that no post of Notice
sr.No.226 of on post of Writer, was vacant was not mentioned
seniority list, Notice Writer. in the show-cause notice, yet the
therefore, Thus, no post of same was made the ground for
seniority was notice writer. passing the order of de-regularisation
not followed Thus, of services of petitioner.
regularisation
Sanjay Mishra was against the
c) Since he rules. b) Since the case of petitioner was
(Petitioner No.2) considered with reference to
passed M.A.
therefore, gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
possessed b) In seniority and not with reference to gradation
requisite list dt. 09.12.03 list prepared in 2009, in which the
qualification of his name was at name of the petitioner does not
sr.no.226. He appear, therefore, it is not possible to
8th pass. not filed infer whether principle of seniority
document with was violated.
reply showing
d) Appointed
his
as daily wager
regularisation
after 31.12.88,
without
therefore, not
following
eligible on the
seniority was
date of
valid.
regularisation

a) Regularised
as peon
(general) on
31.1.04
a) Regularised
b) His name at as Notice
sr.no.263 of Server on
seniority list 31.1.04,
09.12.03, whereas note-
therefore, sheet mentions
seniority was regularisation
a) The fact that no post of Notice
not followed on post of
Server was vacant, was not
Notice Writer.

mentioned in the show-cause notice,
Thus, no post of
yet the same was made the ground for
c ) Since Notice Writer
passing the order of de-regularisation
Higher was vacant and
of services of petitioner.

Secondary, regularisation
therefore was against
Ravindranath Singh possessed rules. b) Since the case of petitioners was
(Petitioner No.3) requisite considered with reference to
qualification of gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
b) In seniority

and not with reference to gradation
Class 8th list dt. 09.12.03
list prepared in 2009, in which the
his name was at
name of the petitioner does not
sr.no.263,

d) Reservation appear, therefore, it is not possible to
therefore,
roster not infer whether principle of seniority
seniority was
followed while was violated.

not followed.

regularisation He did not file
that without
e) Since following
appointed as seniority his
daily wager regularisation
after 31.12.88, was valid.
therefore, not
eligible on the
date of
20726of regularisation
a) Regularised a) The petitioner had referred to in
on 25.12.03 on the reply about the resolution dated
the post of 24.3.1988 passed by the Municipal
Ward Clerk Corporation by which 100 posts of
a) Regularised Ward Clerks were created and the
(OBC), on which
as Ward Clerk matter was forwarded to the State
date no post
(General) on Government for approval, which was
was vacant and

25.12.03 on also granted on 12.3.1997. However,
no document
which date 6 the aforesaid fact in the reply has not
filed in this
posts (3-ST, 2- been considered while passing the
regard in reply.

SC & 1 OBC) impugned order.
were vacant
b) In seniority
list dt. 09.12.03 b) Since the case of petitioner was
b) He was considered with reference to
his name was at
higher gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
sr.no.186.
secondary, and not with reference to gradation
Seniority was
Ravishankar/Mohanlal therefore, did list prepared in 2009, in which the
not followed.
(Petitioner No.4) not possess name of the petitioner does not
No document
requisite appear, therefore, it is not possible to
filed showing
qualification of infer whether principle of seniority
regularisation
Higher was violated.
without
Secondary &
following
Typing Pass
seniority was c) The fact that post of Ward Clerk of
valid general category was not vacant is
c) Appointed not mentioned in the show-cause
as daily wager notice.
c) He is higher
after 31.12.88,
secondary. He
therefore, not
did file any d) The fact that petitioner did not
eligible for
document possess the requisite educational
regularisation
showing that he qualification, was not mentioned in
possessed Hindi the show-cause notice, yet the same is
Typing pass made the ground for passing the
certificate. order of de-regularisation.

a) No post of
Ward Clerk
(OBC) was
a) Regularised vacant on the
as Ward Clerk date of
(OBC) on regularisation.

a) The petitioner had referred to in
10.10.03, on Not filed any
the reply about the resolution dated
which 6 posts proof with reply
24.3.1988 passed by the Municipal
of other showing that
Corporation by which 100 posts of
category were post was vacant
Ward Clerks were created and the
vacant, on the date of
matter was forwarded to the State
therefore, he regularisation
Government for approval, which was
did not come
also granted on 12.3.1997. However,
under vacant

b) In seniority the aforesaid fact in the reply has not
posts.

list dt.09.12.03 been considered while passing the
his name was impugned order.
b) He was sr.no.163. No
Chandrashekhar Patel higher document filed

b) Since the case of petitioner was
(Petitioner No.5) secondary, showing that
considered with reference to
therefore, did his
gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
not possess regularisation
and not with reference to gradation
requisite without
list prepared in 2009, in which the
qualification of following
name of the petitioner does not
Higher seniority was
appear, therefore, it is not possible to
Secondary & valid
infer whether principle of seniority
Typing Pass
was violated.

c) Requisite
c) On 31.12.88 qualification is

c) No reason has been assigned as to
when he was Higher
why the petitioner did not possess the
appointed as Secondary,
requisite educational qualification.

daily wager, whereas he
he was 14 filed certificate
years of age. of Hindi Typing
of Maharashtra
State of 1994
with reply

a) Since
appointed date
1991, no
a) Regularised general a) The fact that post in Hakagang
as Haka Gang category post of cadre belonging to general category
(general) Hakagang was was not vacant, not mentioned in the
whereas 4 vacant show-cause notice.
posts of other
categories
b) In seniority b) Since the case of petitioner was
were vacant.

list dt. 09.12.03, considered with reference to
his name was gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003

b) In seniority sr.no.202, and not with reference to gradation
list of 09.12.03 therefore, no list prepared in 2009, in which the
Rama
his name was document filed name of the petitioner does not
kant Dwivedi
at sr.No.202, showing that appear, therefore, it is not possible to
(Petitioner No.6)
therefore, his senior has infer whether principle of seniority
principle of not been was violated.

seniority not regularized
followed

c) The fact that petitioner did not

c) No document possess the requisite educational

c) Requisite filed showing qualification was not mentioned in the
qualification on the date of show-cause notice, yet the same is
for the post regularisation made the ground for passing the
he possessed order of de-regularisation of services
was 8th pass. requisite of petitioner.

qualification of
post of
Hakagang

a) No document

a) Regularsed
filed with reply
as Time
showing that on
Keeper
25.12.03 post of
(general) on a) The fact that post of Time Keeper
Ward
25.12.03, on of general category was not vacant,
Supervisor
which date, 2 not mentioned in the show-cause
(General) was
posts (1-ST & notice. However, the same was made
vacant
1-SC) were the ground for passing the order of
vacant. de-regularisation.

b) In seniority
61 of list his name is
Rakesh Shukla b) He is b) Since the case of petitioner was
2016 at sr.no.164,
B.Com., considered with reference to
therefore,
whereas gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003
seniority was
requisite and not with reference to gradation
not followed.
qualification list prepared in 2009, in which the
No document
was Higher name of the petitioner does not
filed with reply
Secondary appear, therefore, it is not possible to
showing his
(Mathematics), infer whether principle of seniority
regularisation
therefore, did was violated.
without
not possess
following
requisite
seniority was
qualification.
valid.

a) He had not
filed document
with reply
showing that on
date of
regularisation
post of Ward
Clerk (OBC)
was vacant.

a) The petitioner had referred to in
the reply about the resolution dated

b) In seniority 24.3.1988 passed by the Municipal

a) Regularised list of 09.12.03
as Ward Clerk Corporation by which 100 posts of
his name was at Ward Clerks were created and the
(OBC) on sr.no.154. No
23.9.03, on matter was forwarded to the State
document filed Government for approval, which was
which date, with reply that
OBC category also granted on 12.3.1997. However,
his the aforesaid fact in the reply has not
post was not regularisation
vacant been considered while passing the
without impugned order.

following
1495 of
Amit Yadav b) His seniority was
qualification valid. b) No reason has been assigned as to
was higher why the petitioner did not possess the
secondary, requisite educational qualification.
c) Requisite
whereas qualification is
requisite Higher c) In the show-cause notice it was not
qualification Secondary mentioned that order of de-
was Higher whereas with regularisation was passed in violation
Secondary & reply he filed of principle of seniority, however, the
Typing Test certificate same has been made the ground for
showing Hindi passing the order of de-
Typing pass regularisation.
from
Maharashtra
State on
31.1.04. Thus,
not possessing
requisite
qualification on
date of
regularisation

a) On 16.12.03
8 posts of
Driver
(General) were
a) Regularised vacant and his
on 16.12.03 as name in a) The petitioner in his reply has
Driver seniority list stated that 20 posts of Driver were
(General). On was at 13, vacant when his services were
date of therefore for regularized. However, the stand
regularisation him post was taken by the petitioner in the reply
only 8 not vacant. No was not considered while recording
(general) posts document filed the conclusion that on the date of
were vacant, by petitioner regularization, no post of Driver was
therefore, with reply vacant.
being below in showing that
list, therefore, post was
not entitled for vacant. b) The petitioner was not asked by
regularisation way of show-cause notice to furnish
Santosh Gautam copy of driving licence.
b) No document
(Petitioner No.1) b) In seniority filed with reply
list dt. showing that c) The petitioner has driving licence
09.12.03 his his which is evident from the respective
name was at regulariation driving licence annexed with the writ
sr.no.13 without petition.
following
c) He is Class seniority was

d) In the show-cause notice it was not
valid
mentioned that order of de-

10th, whereas
regularisation was passed in violation
requisite

c) No document of principle of seniority, however, the
qualification
filed with reply same has been made the ground for
was Higher
indicating that passing the order of de-

Secondary &
on 16.12.03 he regularisation.
Driving
Licence was possessing
requisite
qualification for
the post of
Driver.

a) Regularised a) On 16.12.03
on 16.12.03 as 8 posts of
Driver Driver
(General). On (General) were
date of vacant and his
regularisation name in
only 8 seniority list
(general) posts was at 26,
were vacant, therefore for a) The petitioner in his reply has
therefore, him post was stated that 20 posts of Driver were
being below in not vacant. No vacant when his services were
list, therefore, document filed regularized. However, the stand
not entitled for by petitioner taken by the petitioner in the reply
regularisation with reply was not considered while recording
showing that the conclusion that on the date of
post of Driver regularization, no post of Driver was
b) In seniority
was vacant. vacant.
list dt.
09.12.03 his
name was at b) No document b) The petitioner was not asked by
sr.no.26 filed with reply way of show-cause notice to furnish
Ganesh Singh showing that copy of driving licence.
(Petitioner No.2) his
c) He is Class
regulariation
without c) The petitioner has driving licence
8th pass
following which is evident from the respective
whereas
seniority was driving licence annexed with the writ
requisite
valid petition.
qualification
was Higher
Secondary & d) In the show-cause notice it was not
c) His
Driving mentioned that order of de-
educational
Licence regularisation was passed in violation
qualification is

of principle of seniority, however, the
8th, whereas same has been made the ground for

d) Reservation
with reply he passing the order of de-

roster not
filed driving regularisation.
followed
licence of
19.11.1996,
e) Appointed from which it is
as daily wager clear that on
after 31.12.88, 16.12.03 he did
therefore, not not possess
entitled to be requisite
reqularised. qualification

a) On 16.12.03
8 posts of
Driver
(General) were
vacant and his
a) Regularised name in
on 16.12.03 as seniority list
Driver was at 11,
(General). On therefore for a) The petitioner in his reply has
date of him post was stated that 20 posts of Driver were
regularisation not vacant. No vacant when his services were
only 8 document filed regularized. However, the stand
(general) posts by petitioner taken by the petitioner in the reply
were vacant, with reply was not considered while recording
therefore, showing that the conclusion that on the date of
being below in post was regularization, no post of Driver was
list, therefore, vacant. vacant.
not entitled for
regularisation
b) No document b) The petitioner was not asked by
filed with reply way of show-cause notice to furnish
Vijay Kumar b) In seniority showing that copy of driving licence.
(Petitioner No.3) list dt. his
09.12.03 his regulariation
without c) The petitioner has driving licence
name was at
following which is evident from the respective
sr.no.11
seniority was driving licence annexed with the writ
valid petition.
c) He is Class

9th, pass c) His d) In the show-cause notice it was not
whereas educational mentioned that order of de-
requisite qualification is regularisation was passed in violation
qualification of principle of seniority, however, the
was Higher 9th, whereas same has been made the ground for
Secondary & with reply he passing the order of de-
Driving filed HTV regularisation.
Licence driving licence
of 13.7.06, from
which it is clear
that on
16.12.03 he did
not possess
requisite
qualification

a) On 16.12.03
3 posts of
Driver (OBC)
were vacant. No
Regularised on document filed
16.12.03 as by petitioner a) The petitioner in his reply has
Driver (OBC). with reply stated that 20 posts of Driver were
On date of showing that vacant when hi
regularisation post of Driver
only 3 (OBC) (OBC) was
posts were vacant.
vacant,
therefore,
being below in b) No document
list, was not filed with reply
entitled for showing that
regularisation his
& regulariation
Shyam without
In seniority list
Lal Patel following
dt. 09.12.03
(Petitioener No.4) seniority was
his name was
at sr.no.3 valid
&
His c) His
educational educational
qualification qualification is
was nil,
whereas 3rd, whereas
requisite with reply he
qualification filed HTV
was Higher driving licence
Secondary and of 31.7.07, from
Driving which it is clear
Licence that on
16.12.03 he did
not possess
requisite
qualification
of
33. From perusal of the above chart, it is evident that
action against the petitioners have been taken in violation
of principles of natural justice for the following reasons:-

(a) From perusal of order dated 01.9.2005 passed in Writ
Petition No.8359/2005 it is axiomatic that respondent-

Corporation was granted liberty to prepare the seniority
list after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and thereafter pass an orders of de-
regularisation, if warranted.

(b) From perusal of impugned orders it is evident that
respondent-Corporation has concluded that principle of
seniority has not been violated on the basis of seniority list
prepared in the year 2003, whereas in the return as well as
in the written synopsis produced before this Court, a stand
has been taken that seniority list has been prepared in the
year 2009. In the seniority list prepared in the year 2009,
the names of petitioners do not find place, as the orders of
regularization of services of petitioners were already
passed.

(c ) Thus, it is evident that a consolidated seniority list
including the names of petitioners in compliance of order
dated 01.9.2005 passed by this Court has not been
prepared. Therefore, in the absence of the same it is not
possible for the Corporation to conclude that the principle
of seniority has not been followed.

(d) The grounds mentioned in the show-cause notices in
most of the cases are different than the ones, on which, the
impugned orders have been passed, which is evident from
the chart reproduced above.

(e) In the impugned orders it has been recorded that
petitioners have failed to produce any document to show
their educational qualification, whereas by way of show-
cause notices the petitioners were never asked to submit
document with regard to their educational qualifications
alongwith the reply.

(f) The defence set up by the petitioners in their replies has
not been considered while passing the impugned orders;

(g) Since the case of the petitioners were considered with
reference to the gradation list prepared on 09.12.2003 and
not with reference to the gradation list prepared in the
year 2009, in which the names of the petitioners do not
appear, therefore, it is not possible to infer whether any
vacant posts were available in the year 2003.

(h) The petitioners were granted only three daysâ time to
submit their replies, which was inadequate in the fact
situation of the case.

Thus, from the facts narrated supra, it is evident that
orders of de-regularisation have been passed in violation of
principles of natural justice, which cannot be sustained in
the eye of law.

34. The contention raised by learned counsel for
respondent-Corporation that impugned orders have been
passed in compliance of principles of natural justice,
therefore, cannot be accepted in the fact situation of the
case. Similarly, the contention that petitioners have failed
to demonstrate any prejudice also cannot be accepted, as
the prejudice is writ large in the fact situation of the case,
as show-cause notices have been issued on one ground and
impugned orders have been passed on other grounds. The
petitioners have not been given sufficient time to respond
to the show-cause notice and the petitioners were not even
asked to submit documents alongwith the reply. However,
an adverse inference has been drawn on account of non-
submission of documents. The defence of the petitioners
has also not been considered while passing the impugned
orders. The respondent-Corporation was under an
obligation to prepare the seniority list containing the
names of the petitioners to ascertain whether or not the
principle of seniority has been violated. From perusal of
chart, it is evident that doctrine of severability does not
apply to the fact situation of the case.

36. 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 respondent-Corporation 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.

37. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions stand
disposed of.

(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RM