Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Background
The appellant was engaged in 1980 as a daily-rated Supervisor under a project of the Madhya Pradesh Water Resources Department. He sought regularisation as Supervisor/Time Keeper, a post whose minimum qualification (matriculation with mathematics) he did not have, though a 2010 government circular later relaxed it. In 2018 the department rejected his claim, saying he had never been appointed against any post, was not appointed by the competent authority, and no posts were available. A Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court nonetheless ordered his regularisation from the date his juniors were regularised, but a Division Bench set that aside in February 2020.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the Division Bench had rightly applied the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi, under which regularisation of a temporary or daily-wage worker requires, at minimum, that the initial appointment was made by the competent authority and that the employee was working against a sanctioned post. Both conditions were absent here: the appellant had never been appointed against a post, nor by the competent authority. Long service alone, or the fact that juniors had been regularised, could not create a right to regularisation, and there was no ground to interfere with the Division Bench's order.
Lesson Learnt
Working for decades as a daily wager does not by itself entitle a person to a permanent government job; the Umadevi rule requires an appointment by the competent authority against a sanctioned post. Anyone relying on years of ad hoc service for regularisation should check whether those two conditions are actually met.