ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
i. That this Hon. Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately regularize the petitioner w.e.f date of their initial appointments with all consequential benefit.
ii. That any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions thought just and proper may also be issued.
2. The petitioners submit to be working in the department since almost 40 years or even more. It is their case that despite the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 having ordered for consideration of all regular appointees to be considered for regularization, the State has not carried out exercise qua the petitioners. Though the State has framed policy dated 16/05/2007 and various clarifications and modifications have been issued to the said policy but no consideration to case of the petitioner has been carried.
3. The State has filed reply and in the reply it is contended that the
1
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
appointment of the petitioner was illegal and not irregular, however, nothing has been mentioned that in what manner the appointment was not irregular but illegal. This cannot believe a barred assertion made on affidavit by the respondents unless the respondents come out with specific reasons to say that in what manner, the appointment was illegal.
4. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India (2024 SCC Online SC 3826) has held that the cases of the employees cannot be indiscriminatory rejected where the appointments are not illegal but only lack adherence to procedural formalities. It has been held that selective application is subversive to law and weaponizes the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra) against employees who have rendered valuable services over number of decades.
5. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioner in terms of policy dated 16/05/2007 alongwith its subsquent clarifications/modifications, so also taking into account the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this order.
6. Needless to mention that if the petitioners are found entitled to be regularized then all consequential benefits would follow.
7. The petition is disposed of.
RS
2