Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: m l kesari in A.Sivakumar vs The Secretary To Government on 25 May, 2015Matching Fragments
43. As to what would constitute an irregular appointment is no longer res integra. The decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] , has examined that question and explained the principle regarding regularisation as enunciated in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . The decision in that case summed up the following three essentials for regularisation: (1) the employees have worked for ten years or more, (2) that they have so worked in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal, and (3) they should have possessed the minimum qualification stipulated for the appointment.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ c. Union of India and Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors. reported in (2019) 4 SCC 290. The relevant portions are extracted hereinunder: 19. The directions issued in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] have been considered by subsequent Benches of this Court. In State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the “one-time measure” prescribed in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] must be considered as concluded only when all employees who were entitled for regularisation under Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , had been considered. R.V. Raveendran, J., who wrote the opinion of the Court, held: (M.L. Kesari case [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] , SCC pp. 250-51, paras 9-11) “9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.
21. The decisions of this Court in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and M.L. Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] were considered by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand [Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 472] . Madan Lokur, J., construed the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] in the following terms:
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , the benefit of regularisation. The Court thus held that the Jharkhand Sarkar keAdhinasthAniyamit Rup se NiyuktEwamKaryaratKarmiyokiSewaNiyamitikaranNiyamaw ali, 2015 (“the Regularsation Rules”) must be interpreted in a pragmatic manner and employees of the State who had completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the rules, ought to be regularised. In doing so, the Court ensured that employees in the State of Jharkhand who had completed the same years of service as employees from other States, are granted parity in terms of regularisation. The spirit of non-discrimination and equity runs through the decisions in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , M.L. Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] and Narendra Kumar Tiwari [Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238 :