Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sanat Kumar 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    Jaat……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents



2. Writ Petition No.20110/2015


Ashok Kumar Dubey……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents



3. Writ Petition No.20111/2015


Sushil   Shukla…..……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents



4. Writ Petition No.20117/2015


Rustam       Khan…..……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents
 5. Writ Petition No.20192/2015


Hassan        Mehndi..……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents



6. Writ Petition No.20196/2015


Dheeraj      Prasad    Tripathi……………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents



7. Writ Petition No.20204/2015


Rajulal      Patel…………………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents



8. Writ Petition No.20609/2015


Madan Singh Thakur……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents
 9. Writ Petition No.20611/2015


Ramraj       Kushwaha……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents



10. Writ Petition No.20612/2015


Anil     Shukla…….……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents



11. Writ Petition No.20614/2015


Lakhan    Prasad   Sen……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents



12. Writ Petition No.20655/2015


Vishnu     Kant    Tripathy………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents
 13. Writ Petition No.20726/2015


Ashok      Pathak…..……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents



14. Writ Petition No.21014/2015


Surendra     Kumar    Ingwasia……………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents


15. Writ Petition No.21015/2015


Sanat Kumar Shukla……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents


16. Writ Petition No.61/2016


Rakesh       Shukla………………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents



17. Writ Petition No.1495/2016
 Amit      Yadav…….……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents



18. Writ Petition No.1737/2016


Santosh       Gautam.……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents



19. Writ Petition No.1813/2016


Rakesh       Tiwari….……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. Respondents



20. Writ Petition No.1936/2016


Bal    Krishna   Patel……………………….……
Petitioner
                        Versus
Municipal Corporation……….………. 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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, impugned order was passed by which the services of the petitioner from the post of Peon was de-regularised.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner from the post of Peon was cancelled.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner from the post of Gas Welder was cancelled.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner from the post of Peon of OBC category was cancelled.

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 ‘Kulgade’ Chowkidar vide order dated 12.1.2004. On 28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioner with regard to regularization of his services and he was given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner was cancelled.

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 ‘Gadivaan’ vide order dated 12.1.2004. On 28.10.2015, information was sought from the petitioner with regard to regularization of his services and he was given 3 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner was cancelled.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner from the post of Peon was cancelled.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner were cancelled.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the orders of regularization of services of the petitioners were cancelled.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the orders of regularization of services of the petitioners were cancelled.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the orders of regularization of services of the petitioners were cancelled.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted his reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the orders of regularization of services of the petitioners were cancelled.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner was cancelled.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioners was cancelled.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted his reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner was cancelled.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the orders of regularization of services of the petitioners were cancelled.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioners submitted their reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the orders of regularization of services of the petitioners were cancelled.

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 days’ time to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted his reply to letter dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 19.11.2015 the order of regularization of services of the petitioner was cancelled.

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 Devi’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 days’ 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 nobody’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 “show-cause notice” 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 Devi’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:-

“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.”

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:-

“ 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.” (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:-

“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 2015 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.

2015
                                  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 ‘Kulgade Chowkidar’, 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 ‘Gaadivan’ 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
2015
                                  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
2015
                                  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 petitioner’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
2015
                                                      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
2016
                                  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




1737
of
2016

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 days’ 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