Introduction

In the case of Hareshbhai Mohanbhai Patel And Others v. Union Of India And Others, adjudicated by the Bombay High Court on July 24, 2018, the petitioners challenged the denial of regularization of their employment as Post Graduate Teachers (PGT) and Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT). The crux of the dispute lay in the initial appointment of the petitioners on a daily wage basis through advertisements that explicitly stated the terms of engagement, thereby denying any guarantee of regularization.

The parties involved included Hareshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others as petitioners against the Union of India and other respondents. The case revolved around whether the petitioners, initially hired on a daily wage basis, were entitled to regularization despite the specific terms outlined in the recruitment advertisements.

Summary of the Judgment

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) initially held that the petitioners' appointments were strictly on a daily wage basis, in accordance with the clear terms laid out in the recruitment advertisements. The CAT observed that any relaxation or concessions granted to the petitioners did not entitle them to regularization. The High Court upheld the CAT's decision, emphasizing that granting regularization under these circumstances would contravene the explicit conditions set during recruitment and potentially lead to discrimination against other candidates who applied under different terms.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petitions, leaving the original decision of the CAT intact. The court highlighted the absence of any formal policy for regularizing daily wage appointments and reiterated the necessity of adhering to the terms specified in recruitment drives to maintain fairness and legality in the selection process.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several landmark cases to substantiate its reasoning:

• Nihal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2013): Affirmed that the state cannot refuse to regularize appointments when there is a statutory basis for initial hiring, especially when the state later seeks to regularize such appointments.
• State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006): Established that appointments made without adhering to constitutional principles of equality are void.
• Sachin Ambadas Dawale & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2014): Highlighted that regularization cannot be granted if it leads to unfair advantages or discrimination against other candidates.
• Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. L. V. Subramanyeswara & Anr. (2007) and K. Shekar v. V. Indiramma & Ors. (2002): Reinforced the principles around temporary and ad hoc appointments and the limitations on regularization.
• Satya Prakash & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2010): Clarified distinctions between various types of temporary appointments and their eligibility for regularization.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously dissected the nature of the initial appointments, underscoring that the advertisements explicitly offered positions on a daily wage basis without any promise of regularization. The court emphasized:

• Adherence to Recruitment Terms: The specific terms outlined in the advertisements are binding, and deviating from them without a formal policy breaches fundamental employment principles.
• Absence of Formal Regularization Policy: There was no documented policy supporting the regularization of daily wage appointments, rendering such claims baseless.
• Concessions Already Granted: The administration had provided age relaxation and weightage for experience, facilitating fair competition without necessitating regularization.
• Non-Discrimination: Regularizing the petitioners would unfairly advantage them over other eligible candidates who applied under different terms.

The court also distinguished the present case from cited precedents by highlighting differences in factual circumstances, such as the duration of service and the statutory basis for appointments.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that employment terms stipulated during recruitment are sacrosanct unless altered by a clear, formal policy. It acts as a deterrent against backdoor regularization of temporary or contractual positions without adhering to predefined procedures. Future cases involving similar disputes will likely reference this judgment to uphold the integrity of recruitment terms and prevent arbitrary regularization.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The High Court's judgment in Hareshbhai Mohanbhai Patel And Others v. Union Of India And Others underscores the paramount importance of adhering to the explicit terms set forth during recruitment. By dismissing the petitions for regularization, the court affirmed that without a formal policy or statutory mandate, temporary appointments cannot be unjustly converted into permanent positions. This decision upholds the principles of fairness, non-discrimination, and legality in public sector recruitment, setting a clear precedent for similar future cases.

Stakeholders in the education sector and other public services must take heed of this judgment to ensure that recruitment practices are transparent, equitable, and in strict compliance with established legal frameworks.