Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhruv Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26421
1 WP-17912-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 19th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 17912 of 2025
DHRUV KUMAR PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order (Annexure
P-8) dated 06.01.2025 whereby representation of the petitioner for
regularization has been turned down on the ground that as per circular dated
09.01.1990 issued by the State Government only those employees who are
appointed upto 31.12.1988 can be considered for regularization.
2. Upon considering the contents of order (Annexure P-8) it is
evident that the said order has been issued in clear ignorance of judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma
Devi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein the Honble Supreme
Court in para53 has held as under:-
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where
irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.
Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N.
Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26421
2 WP-17912-2025
Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR
937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly
sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have
continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of
orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the
services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the
light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to
and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the
State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to
regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly
appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned
posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and
should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill
those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where
temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The
process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also
clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need
not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further
bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making
permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
3. Even the State Government has issued a subsequent circular dated
16.05.2007 whereby all those employees who have completed 10 years of
services as on 16.05.2007 have to be considered for regularization. It is
evident that the petitioner has ben appointed more than 10 years prior to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26421
3 WP-17912-2025
16.05.2007 and more than 10 years prior to date of judgment in the case of
Uma Devi (supra). Therefore, the order (Annexure P-8) and all the
consequential orders thereto being issued in utter disregard and ignorance of
Constitution Bench of Supreme Court so also consequential circulars issued
by the State, deserves to be and are hereby set aside.
4. The respondents are directed to decide the case of the petitioner in
terms of policy dated 16.05.2007 issued by the State Government in
compliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi
(supra). Let needful be done within a period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order. The petition stands disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
nks
