Rajasthan HC Orders Regularization Of Govt Employee Withdrawn Citing Educational Criteria Despite Favourable Court Orders, Fines ₹2 Lakh

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an order withdrawing regularization of a government employee due to non-fufilment of educational qualification, after noting that the order was not only against the categorical directions of the court's division bench which was upheld by Supreme Court but also violated judicial precedents.

In doing so the court found that the issue of the petitioner's qualification was not raised during the first round of litigation. The court further said that the failure to raise this issue during the earlier stages of litigation renders the subsequent invocation of the qualification requirements "as an afterthought" and "unworthy of judicial consideration at this stage". 

Justice Sameer Jain opined that it was a settled position of law that the terms of employment, including its qualifications, decided at the time of appointment and joining were relevant and had to be applied to all similarly situated persons in a consistent and non-retroactive manner.

“…the respondents have failed to provide any justifiable reason for the non-compliance with the directions passed by the Courts, including the Tribunal's orders. The defense raised by the respondents, which includes references to the petitioner's past conduct and the nature of his initial appointment, does not provide adequate legal justification for the denial of regularization, especially when viewed in light of the long duration of service rendered by the petitioner and the legal directions issued by judicial authorities.”

The petitioner was appointed in 1992 as a Class IV employee at Kumarappa National Handmade Paper Institute but was terminated in 1994. After a prolonged battle of 10 years, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner. Subsequently, he was again terminated.

In 2015, the coordinate bench of the Court directed reinstatement and consideration of his plea of regularization. This decision was unsuccessfully challenged before the Division Bench of the high court followed by an SLP before the Apex Court. The Supreme Court also dismissed the challenge and upheld the position of reinstatement and regularization of the petitioner.

Despite this, the order of the coordinate bench was not adhered to by the respondents that led to the petitioner filing a contempt petition. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondents regularized the petitioner in 2016. However, shortly after, regularization order was withdrawn by the respondent No. 1-the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, on the ground that the petitioner was not educationally qualified to be regularized at the post.

Hence, the petition was filed before the Court.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the issue of the petitioner's qualification was not raised during the first round of litigation which rendered this argument to be an afterthought and hence, unworthy of judicial consideration at this stage.

It was held that the respondents was bound by the directions issued by the Courts, and adoption of any new qualification requirements post facto could not be a valid ground to deny regularization to the petitioner.

“…withdrawal of regularization constitutes a direct contradiction to the binding directions passed by the Apex Court, the Division Bench of this Court, and the Coordinate Bench. It is abundantly clear from the judgments of the Apex Court and the Division Bench that the issue of the petitioner's qualification was not raised during the first round of litigation.”

The Court further highlighted that the petitioner was serving since 1992 and his claim for regularization was based on the fact that similarly situated person, having equivalent qualification, were already regularized.

In this background, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Jaggo v Union of India & Ors. and opined that the Apex Court had emphasized that the educational qualifications relevant at the time of joining shall be applied to all similarly situated employees. It also noted that differential treatment towards similarly situated persons constituted violation of Article 14.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the impugned order withdrawing regularization of the petitioner was quashed. The respondents were directed to regularize the petitioner's services in the same manner as similarly situated persons. Further, a cost of Rs. 2 Lakh was imposed on the respondent institute for the litigation and disregard of judicial orders.

Title: Prahlad Sahai Meena v Chief Executive Officer, Admn. Khadi and Village Industries Commission

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 122

Click Here To Read/Download Order