Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos.  of 2023(Arising out of SLP (C)No.10519 of 2020)
Judges Name: Hon’ble Judges Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat J, Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia J
Order dated: : 08.02.2023

Facts of the case:

1. In the present case the appeal has been filed by the appellant who has been engaged in the State Water Resource Department of Madhya Pradesh as a supervisor on a daily rated basis. The appeal has been filed as the appellant has been aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2020 by the Madhya Pradesh High court which had set aside the order of a Single Judge which had granted the benefit of regularization.
2. The appellant sought for the regularization of the post of Supervisor/Time Keeper. The minimum qualification for the said post was matriculation with mathematics, a qualification which the appellant did not possess. On 13.10.2010 the government had relaxed the qualifications and the appellant sought for regularization as he was qualified and as been working for a long period.
3. The appellant had filed a writ before the Madhya Pradesh High court, in which the High court had ordered the state government to decide the claim of the petitioner. Vide the order dated 1.06.2018 issued by the Chief Engineer the claim of the appellant was rejected despite his qualifications as he had never been appointed against any post. Moreover, his appointment was never made against any competent authority and there were no posts available at the time for regularization.
4. The appellant had set his claim based on the fact that persons who were junior to him as daily wagers were regularized in 1990 or before the Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the regularization from the date when the appellant’s juniors were regularized. This order of the Learned Judge was challenged before a Division Bench by the State Government.
5. The Division Bench held that the Single Judge had not followed the principle of law given in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors– in which it has been laid down that initial appointment must be done by a competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working.

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed/held as follows:

• The conditions laid down in the case of Umadevi 
• (Supra) were clearly missing in the case of the present appellant. 
• The Division Bench was right in holding that the Single Judge bench had not followed the principle of law as laid down in the Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors.  
• The High court is right in setting aside the order of the Single Judge bench and allowing the appeal.
• In the present case there is no case for regularization and there is no scope for interference with the order of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
• The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.