Ramcharan Nanda vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13811 MP

                                                             1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                     WP No. 17450 of 2022
                                     (RAMCHARAN NANDA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                          Dated : 23-08-2023
                                Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                Shri Naveen Dubey - Government Advocate for the respondents / State.

By referring to Annexure-P/5 it is submitted by learned counsel for the State that with an intention to provide more benefits to the Sthai Karmis for their appointment in regular services, a scheme has been formulated, according

to which, selection committee shall prepare the merit list of Sthai Karmis for appointment against the vacant sanctioned post.

Here the word "appointment" has been used and not "regularization". Whether appointment in such a manner will be in accordance with constitutional scheme as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or not, is to be decided. From the scheme it does not appear that there shall be any quota for appointment of Sthai Karmis against the vacant sanctioned post but it appears that the vacant sanctioned post shall be filled up by appointing Sthai Karmis. Accordingly, counsel for the State is directed to address with regard to

correctness of the scheme in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC page No.1. In the Viniyamitikaran scheme, there is no requirement that initial appointment should be irregular and not illegal. Shri Dubey, by referring to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case o f Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Aswini Rai, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436, invited the attention of this Court to para 11 of the judgment and pointed out that the scheme dated 7.10.2016 has been treated as the "scheme for Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 23-Aug-23 1:15:55 PM

regularization" but could not point out from the "Viniyamitikaran scheme" that it amounts to regularization. Accordingly, counsel for the State is also directed to point out the meaning of "Viniyamitikaran" and if it is equivalent to "regularization" then why there is no provision for ascertaining as to whether the initial appointment was illegal and irregular and if "Viniyamitikaran" is different from "regularization" then why it is being projected that it amounts to regularization.

As prayed, list this case on 25.09.2023 at the top of the list.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

JP

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 23-Aug-23 1:15:55 PM