Read Time: 04 minutes

While hearing a claim for regularization, the Supreme Court has noted that though there may be other employees who were regularized without having met the required criteria, one cannot claim negative discrimination qua such persons who have been erroneously granted the benefit of regularization under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

With this view, a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka refused to entertain a plea of regularization filed by a Night Watchman.

Rajendra Badaik, was appointed as a Night Watchman in 1985.

In 1993, the Government of Jharkhand came out with a scheme that such employees who have completed 240 days of regular work on or before August 1, 1985 shall be considered for regularization subject to their over all suitability.

Badaik submitted that though his name was included in the list of 31 employees who were considered for regularization, but because of duplicity of one name, he was eliminated from being regularized on the post held by him.

Since the factual statement was not made clear, the High Court refused to entertain his plea.

The record was placed before the Court's for its perusal along with an affidavit and that indicated that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of regular work before August 1, 1985 in terms of Resolution No. 5940 dated June 18, 1993 of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Bihar, Patna, and that was the reason for which his name was not included in the list of employees who were regularized by the Committee in terms of the said Circular.

The petitioner went on to justify his stand by saying that there were few employees who too according to him had not completed 240 days but still they were regularized.

To this the bench said,

"We do find that there are few employees in reference to which a complaint has been made, but one cannot claim negative discrimination qua the persons who have been erroneously granted the benefit of regularization under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."

Accordingly, the court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order under its jurisdiction under Article 136.

Cause Title: RAJENDRA BADAIK v THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.