Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In December 2020, the Patna High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by a daily wage employee seeking regularization of his service against a Class IV post in Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University (BNMU), Madhepura. The judgment underscores the settled principle that appointments made without following due process cannot be regularized, especially when the posts themselves have been abolished.

Background of the Case

The appellant had been working as a daily wager in Purnia Mahila College since December 1989 on a Class IV sanctioned post. Initially, he was not paid any salary. Later, on the direction of the Vice-Chancellor of L.N. Mithila University (then the parent institution before creation of BNMU in 1992), he was paid daily wages from the college fund. His engagement continued for over two decades.

During this time, the appellant repeatedly requested that his services be regularized. He argued that:

1. Other similarly placed daily wage employees had been regularized by the University.
2. He had worked continuously for many years against sanctioned posts, and therefore deserved similar treatment.
3. Recommendations had been made at various points by college authorities in his favor.

In 2011, however, the University terminated all daily wage employees through a notification. This occurred while his writ petition seeking regularization was still pending.

Single Judge’s Decision (2014)

The Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissed his writ petition, holding that:

• The State Government had imposed a ban on fresh appointments until rationalization of posts.
• Later, by a statute framed by the Chancellor in 2014, all Class IV posts were to be outsourced, abolishing the scope of regular employment in this category.
• As a daily wager appointed without any proper recruitment process (advertisement or selection), the petitioner had no legal right to claim regularization.

Appeal Before the Division Bench

The appellant challenged this decision in LPA No. 553 of 2015, arguing:

• His case fell within the principle of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and M.L. Keshari (2010) 9 SCC 247, where the Supreme Court allowed regularization of employees who had worked for long periods against sanctioned posts.
• He had been discriminated against because other daily wagers in similar positions had been regularized.

The University and State opposed, contending:

• His appointment was a back-door entry, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
• Since there was no advertisement or selection process, his engagement was illegal, not merely irregular.
• With the abolition of Class IV posts and outsourcing policy, no right of regularization could be claimed.

Court’s Observations

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar, upheld the Single Judge’s reasoning:

• The appellant’s initial appointment was contrary to Articles 14 and 16, and hence invalid.
• The Supreme Court’s ruling in Uma Devi clearly prohibits regularization of employees who entered service through back-door methods.
• The outsourcing policy adopted by the Chancellor in 2014 eliminated the possibility of absorption into permanent Class IV service.
• At best, the appellant was entitled to relaxation in age if he applied for future direct recruitment, but no credit could be given for his earlier daily wage service.

Final Judgment

The High Court found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

• For daily wage employees: The ruling reiterates that long years of service do not create a legal right to regularization if the initial appointment was illegal.
• For universities and government institutions: It supports the shift towards outsourcing of non-teaching staff (Class IV), reducing pressure for permanent absorption of daily wagers.
• For legal precedent: The judgment follows Uma Devi (2006), which is the cornerstone ruling on public employment regularization.

Legal Issues and Court’s Decision

• Can daily wage employees be regularized if initially appointed without proper selection?
  • No. Illegal appointments cannot be regularized.
• Does long service entitle one to regularization?
  • No. Continuity of service cannot override constitutional requirements of fair recruitment.
• What is the impact of abolition of Class IV posts?
  • Once posts are abolished and outsourced, no claim of absorption can be entertained.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
• State of Karnataka v. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247

Case Title

Pramod Kumar Jha v. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University & Ors.

Case Number

Letters Patent Appeal No. 553 of 2015 in CWJC No. 11805 of 2007

Citation(s)

2021(1)PLJR 732

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sanjay Karol
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar

Names of Advocates

• For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha
• For Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Singh

Link to Judgment

MyM1NTMjMjAxNSMxI04=-iiYxHBGAHcg=

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.