Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts


Delhi High Court: In a public interest litigation filed by Social Jurist, a civil rights group, regarding appointment of special educators in KVS schools for children with special needs, the Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ. and Subramonium Prasad, J. directed the Union Government and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to sanction 987 posts for special educators to cater to the needs of special children.


Counsel for Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan had furnished details of all the Kendriya Vidyalayas running in the country and the number of special educators that were required to be appointed to cater to the needs of 5625 special children.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

Counsel for the petitioner stated that in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Government had laid down the criteria of appointment of special educators and it was mandatory for every school to appoint special educators for special children.

Analysis, Law, and Decision

The Court noted that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan had engaged 40 special educators on contractual basis and the total number of special educators that were to be engaged was 987, therefore, the Court held that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan must create posts to appoint special educators. Further, the Court allotted eight weeks’ time to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and the Union of India, for appointing 987 special educators and sanctioning the post of 987 special educators, respectively.

The matter would next be listed on 07-03-2023.

[Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, W.P. (C) 5916 of 2022, decided on 17-11-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Petitioner: Advocate Ashok Agarwal;

Advocate Kumar Utkarsh;

Advocate Manoj Kumar;

For the Respondent(s): Advocate S. Rajappa;

Advocate R. Gowrishankar;

Advocate Piyush Beriwal;

Advocate Sahaj Garg;

Advocate Rishav Dubey;

Advocate Divya Srivastava.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. allowed a petition pertaining to exercise of discretionary power of the Governor in the appointment of the household staff in the secretariat.

The petition was filed by one, Dharam Prakash, challenging the government order which promoted the respondent, the junior-most Beldar, to the post of peon with all the consequential benefits, while ignoring the claim of the petitioner, who was senior to the respondent. The respondent was appointed on the job on compassionate grounds in 2009 and was regularized for the job within a period of one year while the petitioner was regularized in 2003, ten years after his service on a contractual basis. 

This Court had earlier issued an order dated 21-12-2019 asking the State to file supplementary affidavit justifying its action in regularizing the respondent and promoting her despite her being the junior-most Beldar.

The Counsel for the respondents submitted that in making appointments or regulating service conditions of the staff of the household establishment of the Governor, the Governor exercises full discretion in the matter. It was also contended that the respondent was freshly appointed to the post of peon, therefore, her position in the seniority list in the category of Beldar was not relevant at that point in time.

The Court while dismissing this contention stated that discretion can only be exercised if there is a power to do so and the same in the given circumstances cannot be arbitrary or contrary to law and when something is done according to the whims of the authorities, Article 14 of Constitution of India is violated which strikes at the arbitrariness of the State.

The Court relied on the judgment of Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70 stating that power of discretion of Government in the matter of granting jobs must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non- discriminatory standards.

The Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner should be considered for the post and if found fit should be appointed as the Peon with all consequential benefits. [Dharam Prakash v. State of H.P., 2020 SCC OnLine HP 30, decided on 02-01-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Arun Bhansali, J. dismissed this Writ Petition by the petitioners for restraining the respondents to terminate their services that was on a contract basis for a very long time.

On 03-09-2015, the petitioner applied for a post under the Deendayal Antyodaya Yojna (‘DAY-NULM’). The above mentioned got restructured in 2014-15 and was renamed too. The posts were for a contractual basis. One T&M Services Consulting Private Limited was engaged by the respondents for manning various posts including post of Manager etc. Now, in 2019 the respondents are terminating the office of their present employees and replacing them with a new set of contractual based employees.

On 03-09-2015, the petitioner applied for the post and got selected for a period of 1 year from the date of selection. Though his tenure got extended time and again. Now, again on 08-03-2019, the respondents issued notices for inviting bids for shortlisting of HR Agencies as a service provider for implementation of the DAY-NULM scheme.

It was submitted the engagement of placement agencies by the respondents is not justified. Mere engagement does not justify anything. The reliance was put on Supreme Court judgment in Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. DGP, (2009) 6 SCC 611. It was held by the Supreme Court that the persons that are appointed on a contractual basis, even if their service is extended for decades on the same contractual job, such a person cannot claim regularization. The service of such a person comes to an end as when the scheme or project is completed.

The Court held, merely because the respondents issued a notice for inviting bids for shortlisting of HR agencies does not give any cause of action to the petitioner for this petition. Except for the challenge made on the notice, which is supported by Mohd. Abdul Kadir case, the petitioner does not have the right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Court dismissed this writ petition.[Om Prakash Vyas v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 4884, decided on 03-12-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: P.B. Bajanthri J., dismissed the petition for regularisation of the service on the ground that statutory rule recognizing such right was not in their favor.

A petition was made to quash the endorsement issued to the petitioner and to seek respondent to regularize their services in the post of accounting consultant from their initial date of appointment and to extend the pay scale.

The facts of the case were that deputy commissioner recruited accounting consultant in the respective municipalities/corporation. The petitioner was appointed as Accounting Consultants but in a subsequent document, he was quoted as Accountant Consultants. The government notified the appointment of Accounting Consultant for one year and it was extendable to one more year to respective post in the local body. The petitioner was appointed for the said post in the year 2007 but in the year 2011 vide notification the post of accounting consultant was incorporated and method of recruitment was made 75% direct and 25% by promotion. A notification regarding enhancement of consolidation of payment was made, the petitioners made representation seeking regularization of their service, the only action for continuing of their service was made up to the year 2016. Among various notification, the notification relating to outsourcing of Accounting Consultant was made, but against which petitioner approached the court, the said petition was disposed of with a direction that petitioners would be given liberty of hearing by the concerned respondent before taking further action. The respondent pursuant to disposal of a writ issued the notices to all the petitioner informing them to be present in the office, but the same was rejected by the respondent. Thus the petition was made regarding the endorsement and regularization of their services in the cadre of an accountant.

M.S. Bhagwat, counsel for the petitioner contended that Petitioners initial appointments was in accordance with law even though it was on a contract basis. State Government issued absorption of the employees appointed under the scheme of Swarnajayanti Shahari Rozgaar Yojana in Urban Local Bodies under Rules, 2005. Petitioners are also similarly situated persons who were also entitled to regularization/absorption in the posts of Accounting Consultants in the respective Municipalities. Petitioners’ contract appointment was for a period of one year or till selection and appointment was done through KPSC and for any reason permanency would not be made. Pursuant to the selection posts, KPSC had forwarded the list of selected Accountant and it was under process. Therefore, the question of regularization of petitioners’ services was impermissible. Thus the petitioner’s grievances were rejected. It was submitted that the petitioner post was made after holding the due procedure except nature and appointment was contractual.

Sridhar N. Hegde, K.V. Narasimhan, Reuben Jacob, G. Gachinamath, counsels for the respondent supported the endorsement issued by the second respondent and contended that petitioners were not entitled to regularization. Since they were not appointed as Accountant but were appointed as Accounting Consultants. Petitioner’s nature of appointment was required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of regularization. Petitioners have failed to question the validity of the Clauses imposed in the order of appointment that their appointment was contractual and purely on a temporary basis at any rate appointment would not be made permanent.

The High Court thus opined that employment signifies fresh appointment to fill vacancies whereas the regularization in accordance with service regulation or in accordance with the statutory law. It was further said that Contractual appointment was for a specified period and not entitled to regularization. Grant of extension of tenure does not confer on status of the employee nor can he/she seek regularization of his/her services in absence of any statutory Rule recognizing such right in his/her favor. The right to regularization of a person on a purely contractual basis would depend on express or implied terms of the contract appointment. The Court through the judgment also communicated that State should avoid contract appointment for longer period. Further, resort for regular recruitment to each of the public post in accordance with the Rules of recruitment governing the post and to comply with the Constitutional provisions read with Constitution Bench decision in the case of State Of Karnataka v. Umadevi. [Preethi Bhandage v.  State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 685, decided on 28-06-2019]

Patna High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: Mohit Kumar Shah, J. allowed a petition seeking consideration of candidature against the Backward Caste category.

Petitioner was working as Agriculture Coordinator since the date of his appointment on contractual basis. The contractual service of the petitioner had been extended from time to time and in the meantime, an advertisement was published by the Commission on 29-04-2015 for the purposes of making recruitment to the post of Agriculture Coordinator. It was provided in the said advertisement that the caste certificate issued by the notified Circle Officer regarding certification of the caste of the backward class and extremely backward class which stated about the candidate not belonging to the creamy layer, would be considered valid. It was further provided that at the time of counseling, the candidates belonging to the backward category / extremely backward category had to produce the non-creamy layer certificate and in case, they failed to submit the said certificates, such candidates would be considered under the unreserved category and they would not get the benefit of reservation. On not finding his name in the results, the petitioner filed an objection before the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna (Bihar SSC). The Commission passed an order stating that the candidature of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the non-creamy layer certificate at the time of counseling. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition was filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Nityanand Mishra, submitted that the petitioner had submitted the non-creamy layer certificate, as was evident from the impugned order dated 22-07-2017, but still, the candidature was cancelled. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent, Ashok Kumar Dubey, submitted that the petitioner had failed to furnish his non-creamy layer certificate during the counseling held on 05-05-2016.

The Court observed that the only ground for debarring the candidature of the petitioner under the BC Category and putting him in the general category was that the non-creamy layer certificate has not been submitted at the time of the counseling held by the Commission wherein the petitioner had participated and instead, the petitioner had submitted the same subsequently on 29-05-2017. The Court cited Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754, in which it was held that reservation was provided to the backward classes of society with the objective of removing inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories were unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity.

Consequently, the Court held that the candidature of the petitioner could not be rejected merely on the account of late submission of the non-creamy layer caste certificate, though the same had been submitted much prior to the publication of the result.

In view of the above, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 22-07-2017 passed by the Commission and directed the respondent Bihar SSC to reconsider the application of the petitioner against the backward caste category.[Shashi Bhushan Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 677, decided on 17-05-2019]