Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has directed the regularization of a contractual lecturer who has served continuously for over 22 years at the D.N.S. Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Patna. The petitioner was originally appointed in November 2001 through a proper selection process and has been on an extended contractual basis ever since.

Despite repeated representations and commendations for his performance, his request for regularization was denied by the National Council for Cooperative Training (NCCT) in August 2023, citing the absence of a rule permitting such regularization. This denial prompted the petitioner to approach the court.

The court found this rejection unjust and contrary to the constitutional principles of equality and fairness under Articles 14 and 16. Importantly, the court emphasized that the petitioner was appointed on a sanctioned post after a transparent process and had rendered long, uninterrupted service. The denial of regularization, despite such service and qualifications, was held to be discriminatory and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in key rulings such as Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) and Narendra Kumar Tiwary vs. State of Jharkhand (2018).

The court clarified that while there may be no specific rule permitting regularization, the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents provide sufficient grounds to treat long-serving, qualified, and contractually appointed employees differently from illegal appointees. The petitioner, having crossed the age of regular recruitment and nearing superannuation, was also found to be at risk of being unfairly denied employment benefits.

Further, the court held that procedural formalities cannot override substantive rights gained through long service. It cited several judgments highlighting that those working on sanctioned posts for over a decade through valid selection processes deserve consideration for regularization, especially when their peers in similar positions have already been regularized.

In conclusion, the court set aside the impugned order dated 10.08.2023, directed the authorities to regularize the petitioner’s service from the date of eligibility or from the date similarly situated lecturers were regularized, and awarded consequential monetary benefits to be disbursed within three months.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This ruling is significant for thousands of contractual employees in Bihar and across India who have been working for years without job security. It clarifies that continuous service on a sanctioned post through proper selection cannot be brushed aside merely due to the lack of explicit regularization rules. It sends a strong message to public authorities that fair employment practices must prevail over bureaucratic formalities, especially when such practices deny dignity and benefits to long-serving workers.

The judgment empowers similar employees to assert their rights and encourages the government to revisit outdated recruitment policies that may be unintentionally exploitative. For the general public, it strengthens the principle that public employment must be equitable and just, particularly for those who have served faithfully for decades.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Whether a long-serving contractual employee appointed through due process on a sanctioned post can be denied regularization due to absence of a specific rule?
  • Held: No. The court ruled that substantive rights from long service must be respected and directed regularization.
• Whether procedural rules can override principles of fairness under Articles 14 and 16?
  • Held: No. Procedural gaps cannot be used to perpetually deny justice to qualified and deserving employees.
• Whether the petitioner was discriminated against compared to similarly situated lecturers?
  • Held: Yes. Denial of regularization solely in his case was found to be discriminatory and violative of constitutional equality.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1
• Narendra Kumar Tiwary vs. State of Jharkhand (2018) 8 SCC 238
• Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. v. State of U.P. (2018) 13 SCC 432
• State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118
• M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. Nanuram Yadav (2007) 8 SCC 264
• State of M.P. vs. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575
• Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India (2024)

Case Title

(Dr.) Rajesh Kumar vs. The Union of India & Ors.

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13373 of 2023

Citation(s)- 2025 (1) PLJR 247

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Mr. Ayush Kumar, Mr. Kanishk Shankar, Mr. Chandan Kumar
• For the Respondents (Union of India): Dr. K.N. Singh, A.S.G.; Mr. A.B. Mathur, Mr. Amarjeet, Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Mr. Ranjeet Kumar

Link to Judgment

MTUjMTMzNzMjMjAyMyMxI04=-Pr2D04Z4U9E=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.