Jharkhand High Court
Shyama Nand Tiwari vs The Union Of India Through The Chairman on 7 July, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4434 of 2026
-----
1. Shyama Nand Tiwari, aged about 53 years, son of Late Dhruv Narayan
Tiwari, resident of Pauta, P.O. Chandwar, P.S.-Hazaribag, District-
Hazaribag, Jharkhand.
2. Prakash Sharma, aged about 49 years, son of Late Ramgulam Sharma,
resident of Pathar Road, Shivpujan Colony, Doranda, P.O. and P.S.
Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
… … Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Chairman, Central Board of Indirect
Taxes and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New
Delhi having its office at North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi,
Delhi-110001.
2. The Additional Commissioner (CCA), CGST & CX, Ranchi Zone,
Patna, having its office at Birchand Patel Path, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-
Birchand Patel Path, District-Patna, Bihar-800021.
3. The Principal Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, having its
office at Revenue Building, 5-A-Main Road, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Sadar,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001.
… … Respondents
——-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
——-
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
——
CAV/Reserved on 29.06.2026 Pronounced on: 07.07.2026
1. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 13.02.2026 passed in O.A.
051/00894/2024 along with MA/051/00680/2024 and
MA/051/00713/2024 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Patna Bench, Circuit Sitting at Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the
original application has been dismissed by declining to pass positive
direction in favour of the petitioners on the issue of regularization of their
service.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition
having been enumerated from the original application needs to be referred
here which reads as under.
Page | 1
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]
2.1 The petitioners have been continuously working as Casual Labourers
in the office of the Principal Commissioner, Central GST and Central
Excise, Ranchi and its regional offices in the State of Jharkhand on
direct engagement basis since 03.07.1995 and 10.04.1999
respectively without any break which would be evident from the
letter dated 11.03.2021 issued under the signature of Additional
Commissioner (CCA) in favour of the Deputy Registrar (AD. IIIB).
2.2 It is further stated that though all the petitioners are working for more
than three decades, but their claim for regularization was illegally
rejected without mentioning the qualification as prescribed for Class-
IV employees, vide the impugned order dated 14.07.2022.
2.3 According to the petitioners, in Part Time Casual Labourers
(Regularization) Scheme of CBIC-2020 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme, 2020), no eligibility criteria has been prescribed for
Class-IV employees which shows that there is no prescribed
educational qualification under Scheme-2020. Therefore, rejection of
claim of the petitioners by the respondents is wholly illegal and
contrary to the Scheme.
3. The petitioners, being aggrieved thereof, have approached the learned
Tribunal by filing original application being O.A. 051/00894/2024 along
with MA/051/00680/2024 & MA/051/00713/2024, wherein the learned
Tribunal has declined to pass any positive direction, hence, the present
writ petition has been filed.
4. It is evident from the factual aspect as has been referred hereinabove that
the petitioners have been continuously working as Casual Labourers in the
office of the Principal Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise,
Ranchi and its regional offices in the State of Jharkhand on direct
engagement basis since 03.07.1995 and 10.04.1999 respectively without
any break which would be evident from the letter dated 11.03.2021 issued
under the signature of Additional Commissioner (CCA) in favour of the
Deputy Registrar (AD.IIIB).
Page | 2
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]
5. It has further been stated that though all the petitioners are working for
more than three decades, but their claim for regularization was illegally
rejected vide the impugned order dated 14.07.2022.
6. According to the petitioners, in Part Time Casual Labourers
(Regularization) Scheme of CBIC-2020, no eligibility criteria has been
prescribed for Class-IV employees which shows that there is no prescribed
educational qualification under Scheme-2020. Therefore, rejection of
claim of the petitioners by the respondents is wholly illegal and contrary
to the Scheme.
7. The petitioners, being aggrieved thereof, have approached the learned
Tribunal by filing original application being O.A. 051/00894/2024 along
with MA/051/00680/2024 & MA/051/00713/2024, wherein the learned
Tribunal has declined to pass any positive direction, hence, the present
writ petition has been filed.
Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners:
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the grievance that even after
discharging their duty as part time casual labourer for about three decades,
they have not been regularized, as such, approached the learned Tribunal
for quashing of the decision so taken by the respondent-authority dated
14.07.2022.
9. The ground has been taken that they have discharged their duty fairly for
a long period of about three decades and as such, they are coming under
the fold of the regularization but having not been considered rather the
respondents has gone into the wrong direction of having no educational
qualification as per the Scheme, 2020.
10. It is the grievance of the petitioners that their only case before the learned
Tribunal was for regularization and they have not sought for direction for
their regularization under the Scheme, 2020.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that the instant writ petition is, therefore, fit to be allowed by
quashing the order dated 13.02.2026 passed in O.A. 051/00894/2024
along with MA/051/00680/2024 & MA/051/00713/2024 by the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Sitting at Ranchi.
Page | 3
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]
Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents:
12. While on the other hand, the respondents have taken the plea that the
Group-D post is not available after the recommendation of the 6 th PRC
and only post under the establishment is of Group-C for which the
minimum qualification is matriculation. The petitioners being not
possessing matriculation rather they are only 9th Class Pass, as such, have
not been found to be eligible.
13. The further contention of the respondent was that due to non-availability
of the post of Group-D, only consideration ought to have been given of
the Group-C for which the petitioners have not been found to be having
requisite qualification and other certificates as per the recruitment rules.
14. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the plea taken by the
respondents and on further consideration of the fact that the only
regularization is to be carried under the Scheme, 2020 for which the
minimum educational qualification is matriculation but the petitioners
having not been found to be matriculate, therefore, their claims have been
rejected declining to interfere with the decision so taken by the
respondent-authority, which is the subject matter of the present writ.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents, based upon the aforesaid grounds,
has submitted that the instant writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and as
such, is liable to be dismissed.
Analysis:
16. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the pleading made on behalf of the respective parties as available on
record.
17. At this juncture it requires to refer herein that this Court is exercising the
power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is
by way of power of judicial review upon the order passed by the learned
Tribunal as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261 .
18. The power which is to be exercised as per the position of law is to look
into the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Tribunal
only in a case error apparent on the face of the order or in a case of
Page | 4
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]
perversity of finding in exercise of power conferred under the power of
judicial review as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph-
99 in the aforesaid judgment. The said paragraph is being referred as
under:
“99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2(d)
of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they
exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court
under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional.
Section 28 of the Act and the “exclusion of jurisdiction” clauses in all
other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-
B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction
conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the
Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the
inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction
cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a
supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles
226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created
under Article 323-A and Article 323- B of the Constitution are
possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of
statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will,
however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High
Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The
Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance
in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It
will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High
Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory
legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular
Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to
be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.”
19. The power of judicial review has also been deliberated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court, which is to be considered while exercising the said power
only to the extent that if any order is being passed found to be having error
on the face of the order or without jurisdiction or suffers from perversity.
The error apparent on the face of the order means that if the order appears
on its face having with error, then only the power of judicial review is to
be exercised.
Page | 5
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of West Bengal Central School
Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18 SCC 39, has held at
paragraph-30 that the power of judicial review must be exercised by the
Court after determining that the impugned order is vitiated by an error
apparent on the face of the record and not the same has been established
by a process of reasoning. Paragraph-30 of the aforesaid judgment is being
referred as under: –
“30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see
whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law.
The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent
on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face
of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to
establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning,
on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said
to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court
in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa
Tirumale [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137] . —.”
21. In the case of T.C. Basappa vs. T. Nagappa and Anr., (1955) 1 SCR 250,
their Lordship have held that the patent error in a decision can be corrected
by writ of certiorari, when it is manifested by the error apparent on the
face of the proceedings. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is
quoted hereunder:
“11. … An error in the decision or determination itself may also be
amenable to a writ of certiorari but it must be a manifest error apparent
on the face of the proceedings e.g. when it is based on clear ignorance
or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error
which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision.
….”
22. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled legal position it is evident that
the power of judicial review can be exercised, if error on the face of the
order impugned, challenged under the Article 226 of Constitution of
India, appears to be there.
23. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is now
re-adverting to the fact of the instant case.
Page | 6
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]
24. Herein, the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the grievance that
even after discharging their duty as part time casual labourer for about
three decades, they have not been regularized, as such, approached the
learned Tribunal for seeking direction by making the following prayers:
“(i) For quashing and setting aside the orders dated 14.07.2022
[Annexure-2 (Series)] passed by Respondent No.3, wherein and
whereas the claim of the applicants for their regularization has been
rejected on the ground of having ‘Not fulfilling Educational
Qualification’ under the ‘Part-Time Casual Labourers
(Regularization) Scheme of CBIC-2020’.
(ii) The Applicants further pray for direction(s) upon the Respondents
to regularize the services of the Applicants under the ‘Part-Time Casual
Labourers (Regularization) Scheme of CBIC-2020’ as the applicants
are fulfilling all the requisite qualifications therein and further the
respondents may be directed to grant all the consequential benefits to
the Applicants forthwith.”
25. It needs to refer herein that the issue of regularization is well propounded
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka
& Ors. Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.
26. The background upon which the Hon’ble Apex Court has propounded the
proposition is to put restriction upon the back-door entry in public
employment by putting restriction of induction of the person concerned
on the daily rated capacity. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of
one-time exercise, after taking into consideration the fact about the
continuation of service of daily rated employee who have already
completed more than 10 years of service has come out with the relaxation
by carving out the guideline as under paragraph-53 thereof, which is being
reproduced 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.
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, thePage | 7
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]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.”
27. It is evident from the proposition as laid down under paragraph-53 for
consideration at the end of the State that the daily rated employees who
are to be regularized by way of one-time exercise are required to complete
10 years of continuous service without any aid of interim order passed by
the Court such appointment if made against the sanctioned post.
28. The concept of the irregular appointment and illegal appointment was the
core of the observation made in paragraph-53 of the aforesaid judgment.
The irregular appointment has been said to be irregular one where the
appointment has been made without following the due procedure of law
even though the employee has been found to be working continuously for
10 years against the sanctioned post. While, the illegal appointment has
been said to be illegal one if the appointment has not been made against
the sanctioned post.
29. The said principle has been followed in the other judgments of the Hon’ble
Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. M.L.
Kesari & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 247; Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs.
State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2018) 8 SCC 238 and; Nihal Singh and Ors.
vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 65.
30. The judgments rendered in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. M.L.
Kesari & Ors. (supra) has come out with the proposition that what would
be the meaning of the period of six months for completion of the exercise
which has been propounded as under paragraph-53 of the judgment
Page | 8
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]
rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma
Devi (supra). It has been held therein that the period of six months will be
said to be in completion if the candidature of all the daily rated employee
has been considered by the State. If candidature of any of the candidate
has not been considered, then the period of six months will be stretched.
Relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered in State of Karnataka &
Ors. vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. (supra) is being reproduced as under:
“10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi
(3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual
employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several
departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time
regularisation process. On the other hand, some government
departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise
excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground
that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In
such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered
in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] ,
will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely
because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their
cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53
of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] has expired. The one-time exercise
should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put
in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the
protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer
had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi
(3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , but did not consider the cases of some employees
who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4
SCC 1] , the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a
continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be
concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be
considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , are
so considered.
11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi
(3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have
put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection
of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision
in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] was rendered, are considered for
regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that thePage | 9
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of
employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods
and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have
served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or
statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true
effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than
ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006)
4 SCC 1] ] without the protection of any interim order of any court or
tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are
entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer
has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of
the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] or that such exercise was
undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such
employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the
above directions in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] as a one-time
measure.”
31. Another judgment has been rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.,
(supra) wherein by following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi
(3) (supra) wherein the period of 10 years was to be counted till the date
of pronouncement of the judgment. But the question arose that how the
period of 10 years will be counted in a situation where the State of
Jharkhand has been carved out w.e.f. 15.11.2000. The period of 10 years,
therefore, has been modified by counting it from the date of creation of
the State, i.e., from 15.11.2000. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment
rendered in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand &
Ors., (supra) is being reproduced as under:
“10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the
Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the
appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of
promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit
of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of
service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection
to their regularisation like misconduct, etc.”
32. The State of Jharkhand, based upon the aforesaid proposition, as has been
laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma
Page | 10
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]
Devi (3) (supra) coupled with the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors.
vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has passed observation by giving liberty to the State to formulate a rule
for regularization and in turn thereof, a Rule has been formulated in the
year 2015 which has been made effective from 01.12.2015. The Rule
contains a provision of constituting a committee for consideration of the
case of one or the other daily rated employees on the basis of the principle
as laid down in the aforesaid judgment.
33. The Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India
and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 while dealing with the
issue of regularization in a case where the issue of regularization relates
to the part time worker who has not been appointed against the sanctioned
post, the Hon’ble Apex Court, after taking note of the judgment passed in
the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (Supra), has
been pleased to hold at paragraph 20 that the decision in Secretary, State
of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (Supra) does not intend to penalize
employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and
necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. Relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment are being reproduced as under:
“12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants
performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over
extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades.
Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it
was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically
associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not
engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants’
tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.
20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not
intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service
fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its
instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries
and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements.
However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly
“irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the
backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need
for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged,
continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently
Page | 11
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was
initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair
regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod
Kumar v. Union of India5, it was held that held that procedural
formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an
employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has
performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over
a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The
relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:
“6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High
Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific
circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have
continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the
outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have
accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their
promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a
subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written
tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the
appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma
Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished
between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the
importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made
strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot
be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures
of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or
interviews as in the present case…”.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the
practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to
constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often
misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and
“irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in
irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts
and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be
considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the
laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely
on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in
cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack
adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often
Page | 12
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]
cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the
judgment’s explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is
appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit
and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have
rendered indispensable services over decades.”
34. Subsequently, in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Ors. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129 the contractual engage has been directed
to be regularized on the basis of the deemed sanction of the post. The
Hon’ble Apex Court while taking into consideration the ratio rendered in
the case of Jaggo v. Union of India (supra) has categorically held that
this Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by
States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”,
“contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them
by not regularizing their positions. Relevant paragraph of the said
judgment is being reproduced as under:
“13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned
one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over
several years and has been granted repeated extensions cannot,
overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept
the justification advanced by the respondents as the obligation of the
State, as a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees
irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or regular.
13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice
adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of
“part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby
exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union
of India, this Court underscored that government-departments must
lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved
the test of examining whether the duties performed by such temporary
employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the
organization.
13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India,
this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance
on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in
the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot
be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements
continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The
Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction betweenPage | 13
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”,
the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the
prescribed conditions.”
35. The purpose of making reference of the aforesaid judgment is to examine
the issue herein since the case of the present petitioners is for
regularization contrary to the eligibility having not been possessed by
them. Herein, the admitted case of the petitioners is that they are not
matriculate rather they are only 8th-9th Class Pass. As such, this Court is
referring the aforesaid judgments to consider the fact of the present
petitioners on the basis that whether non-possession the educational
qualification will come under the fold of illegal appointment or not and if
it comes under the fold of the illegal appointment, whether the engage can
be regularized.
36. The second concern is as to whether the regularization which has been
sought for as a Group-D post if not being found to be available after
extinguishing the Group-D post on adoption of the recommendation of 6th
PRC, can the petitioners be regularized in Group-D post.
37. Since both the issues are interlinked, as such, are being taken up together.
38. It is manifest from the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1,
as also in State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC
247 that an appointment made dehors the rules is incurably illegal. The
defect of non-possession of the requisite educational qualification strikes
at the very root of eligibility and is, therefore, incapable of being cured at
any subsequent stage. Once an appointee enters service without fulfilling
the prescribed educational qualification, such illegality remains perpetual
and cannot be rectified for all time to come.
39. The admitted case herein is that the petitioners are having no matriculation
certificate rather they are 09th Class Pass.
40. The main contention of the petitioners is that they are only willing to be
regularized in Group-D post and not in Group-C post. It is the case of the
petitioners that the matriculation is required for the purpose of
appointment in Group-C service not in Group-D post.
Page | 14
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]
41. The aforesaid fact has been totally denied by the respondent by taking the
specific plea to that effect as taken note in paragraph 4.2 of the impugned
judgment/order wherein it has been referred based upon the ground taken
in the written statement that after adoption of the recommendation of the
6th PRC, the Group-D post has been merged to Group-C post and there is
no Group-D post, as such, the ground has been agitated, in opposition, by
the respondent before the learned Tribunal that in absence of any Group-
D post, there cannot be any regularization in Group-D post and
regularization is only possible in Group-C category depending upon
possessing the requisite educational qualification.
42. This Court is of the view that once the decision has been taken by the
competent authority of merging the Group-D post to Group-C post then,
there cannot be a situation of regularization to Group-D post rather the
regularization will always be in Group-C post, that is the effect of merger
of Group-D post to Group-C post.
43. The scheme for the aforesaid purpose of regularizing one or the other in
Group-C post has been formulated which contains the conditions as has
been referred in the judgment/order passed by the learned Tribunal for the
purpose of regularization in which one of the conditions is continuity in
service for 10 years possessing requisite qualification. As per the Scheme,
2020 for the purpose of regularization in Group-C service, matriculation
is required as the minimum educational qualification.
44. The petitioners herein, admittedly, are having no matriculation certificate
rather they are 08th/09th Class Pass as would be evident from the
communication made by the authority competent to regularize as available
at running page nos. 97 and 98 of the instant petition wherein the
educational qualification said to be available to the petitioners is only
08th/09th Class Pass.
45. The law is well settled that in absence of requisite qualification, no
candidate be appointed to such post since such candidate is not entitled to
hold the post. This principle is a foundational tenet of Indian service
jurisprudence. An appointment made without the requisite qualifications
is considered non-est (void ab initio) and a complete nullity in the eyes of
the law. Possessing the essential qualifications exactly as outlined in the
Page | 15
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]
recruitment notification or statutory rules is non-negotiable. Reference in
this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court
In State of M.P. vs. Shyama Pardi, (1996) 7 SCC 118 wherein it has been
held that an appointment made in the absence of requisite qualification
prescribed under Rules is void ab initio and neither it confers any right
upon the person concerned to hold the post or continue if he/she has been
appointed though did not possess requisite qualification nor any direction
for payment of salary can be issued in such cases.
46. A similar controversy arose in the case of Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P.,
(AIR 2006 SC 3492) the Apex Court held that an appointment lacking
requisite qualification would be a nullity. A question also raised before the
Hon’ble Apex Court that if subsequently the candidate has attained the
requisite qualification whether that would validate the appointment but it
was replied by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the validity of an appointment
has to be considered at the time of appointment and if the appointment
was made by ignoring the requisite qualification or if it is found that the
candidate did not possess requisite qualification at that time of
appointment, the appointment would be void ab initio.
47. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar vs. U.P.
Secondary Education Services Commission, (2008) 7 SCC 153 has
observed that if the essential educational qualification for recruitment to a
post is not satisfied, ordinarily the same cannot be condoned. Such an act
cannot be ratified. An appointment which is contrary to the
statute/statutory rules would be void in law. An illegality cannot be
regularised, particularly, when the statute in no unmistakable term says so.
Only an irregularity can be.
48. Accordingly, both the issues are hereby, answered against the petitioners.
49. This Court, having discussed the factual and legal aspect, is now adverting
to the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. It is evident from the
judgment passed by the learned Tribunal that the issue of non-existence of
Group-D post has been taken into consideration which fact has not been
disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
50. The fact about applicability of the Scheme, 2020 has also been taken into
consideration by the learned Tribunal wherein, for the purpose of
Page | 16
[2026:JHHC:20003-DB]
regularization in Group-C post, minimum educational qualification is
matriculation. The learned Tribunal has considered the applicability of the
minimum educational qualification and has found that the petitioners are
not matriculate rather they are only 8th – 9th Class Pass.
51. On the aforesaid reasons, the learned Tribunal has declined to interfere
with the impugned decision/order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the
Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Principal Commissioner Central GST & Central
Excise.
52. This Court, therefore, is of the view that each and every factual aspect has
been taken into consideration in right perspective, as such, there is no
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2026 passed
in O.A. 051/00894/2024 along with MA/051/00680/2024 &
MA/051/00713/2024 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Patna Bench, Circuit Sitting at Ranchi.
53. This Court in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances and based
upon the reasons as referred hereinabove, is of the view that the writ
petition is to be dismissed.
54. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
55. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree,
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
07th July, 2026
Saurabh/-
A.F.R.
Uploaded on 09.07.2026
Page | 17
