Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In CWJC No. 8026 of 2019 and connected cases, the Patna High Court considered petitions from individuals engaged as part of various centrally-sponsored or state-sponsored schemes, including National Health Mission (NHM), SSA (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan), and other project-based programs. These individuals sought directions from the Court for their absorption into regular government service or protection from termination.

The petitioners claimed:

• They were selected through proper selection procedures.
• They have been continuously working for years.
• Their services were terminated arbitrarily.
• Their roles were essential and continued to be required by the government.
• They are similarly situated as those employees who were regularized pursuant to CWJC No. 6546 of 2017.

The State, however, submitted that:

• The petitioners were appointed under time-bound schemes and projects.
• These schemes were not intended to create permanent government posts.
• Their services could be terminated upon project completion or fund exhaustion.
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Umadevi (2006) explicitly bars regularization of such scheme-based appointments unless made through constitutionally mandated procedures.

Upon reviewing the facts and legal precedents, the Court emphasized:

• The principle laid down in Umadevi (2006) still governs public employment.
• No contractual or scheme-based worker has a vested right to demand absorption into permanent service.
• Absorption or regularization is only possible if appointments were made against sanctioned posts through a competitive, fair selection process.
• The directions in CWJC No. 6546 of 2017 were not applicable to the present petitioners as their appointments were not made against sanctioned posts, nor were they under regular establishment rules.

Further, the Court observed that many of these scheme-based posts were never part of the regular State cadre and existed only for the duration of the project or scheme. Since the schemes had either been modified, subsumed, or withdrawn, the posts automatically ceased to exist.

The Court, therefore, upheld the position of the State that the petitioners had no legal claim to be retained or regularized.

Final Outcome:

• All writ petitions, including CWJC No. 8026 of 2019, were dismissed.
• Interim orders, if any, were vacated.
• The State was allowed to proceed as per its legal and administrative decisions, including disengagement.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the legal boundary between scheme-based employment and regular government service. It underlines that contractual or project-specific employees cannot automatically seek absorption into permanent government roles. The decision brings legal clarity for both the government and scheme-based workers regarding the non-permanency of such roles.

The ruling will affect a wide range of contractual workers in sectors such as health, education, and rural development, where employment is often governed by externally funded programs.

For the government, this judgment provides judicial backing to proceed with phasing out redundant or time-bound scheme posts without facing regularization claims.

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

• Whether scheme-based workers can claim regularization of service.
  ❌ No. Regularization cannot be claimed unless appointments were made against sanctioned posts through constitutionally valid procedures.
• Whether the State is obliged to formulate a regularization policy for such workers.
  ❌ No. The Court held that there is no such legal mandate.
• Whether earlier directions in CWJC No. 6546 of 2017 apply to these petitioners.
  ❌ No. Those directions were limited to cases involving appointments against sanctioned posts.
• Whether termination of scheme-based employees is arbitrary if projects are closed.
  ❌ No. The Court held that project conclusion naturally leads to disengagement.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1
• State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh
• CWJC No. 6546 of 2017 (Scope limited and distinguished)

Case Title
CWJC No. 8026 of 2019 and analogous cases

Case Number
CWJC No. 8026 of 2019

Citation(s)
2021(1)PLJR 273

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
Mr. Rajendra Prasad (for petitioners)
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, GP 14 (for State)

Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTI5MjEjMjAxOSMxI04=—ak1–J6u–am1–GMsq2M=

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.