The Tripura High Court dismissed a petition of a contractual worker seeking regularization of service and held that regularization cannot become a regular process of recruitment and it was stated that the petitioner, moreover had entered into service through the back door and is not entitled to get the benefit of the scheme of regularization nor in any way be considered for regularization.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner engaged as a contract basis worker filed the present petition praying for regularization of her service on the basis of some schemes framed by the Government of Tripura which were adopted by the respondents-TSECL in the year 2008 which laid down some parameters for regularization in consonance with the spirit and directions passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Uma Devi & ors and were repealed by the state government after ten years in 2018.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for consideration of the regularization of the service of the petitioner since she had been serving for a long period.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the petitioner was not appointed against any regular vacant sanctioned post and the petitioner was not engaged by the competent authority and was appointed at the whims of an officer and this kind of appointment was no an irregular but an illegal appointment.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the judgment in State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari which made a clear distinction between irregular and illegal employees and the judgment in State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Uma Devi which directed the Central and the State Governments to formulate a scheme for irregularly appointed employees, but not for the employees who are appointed illegally.
The court stated that in the present case, the petitioner has failed to justify that she was appointed against any regularly sanctioned vacant post and there was no engagement letter in the writ petition, and neither was there any mention of the date of engagement of the petitioner in the list of workers.
The court further referred to the judgment in Satyaranjan Dey & anr. vs. The State of Tripura & ors. wherein it was held that regularization cannot become a regular process of recruitment and it was stated that the petitioner, moreover had entered into service through the back door and is not entitled to get the benefit of the scheme of regularization nor in any way be considered for regularization.
The decision of the Court:
The court found the petition devoid of merit and dismissed it.
Case Title: Laxmi Saha vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh
Case No.: WP(C) No. 75 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. S. Bhattacharjee
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. N. Majumder
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
