Prohibiting an intra-court appeal in a regularization petition where the Single Judge upheld a regularization order following the Supreme Court's Mukesh Sharma ruling, rejecting the University's claim of per incuriam based on Uma Devi.
The intra-court appeal challenging the Single Judge's order allowing regularization was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 4)
[SAW-640/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 640/2023
----Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Hanuman Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 55, Thiroda Ka Bass, Village Megadand, Post Ren, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order
02/11/2023
This intra court appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9769/2022 (Rajendra Kumar Vs. Jai Narain Vyas University & Anr.) along with other connected writ petitions.
The respondent in this case was appointed as LDC-cumComputer Operator with the appellant-University and is working on the said post for more than 10 years. The respondent has approached this Court claiming that since he is working with the appellant-University from last more ten years, his services are liable to be regularized.
Learned Single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned counsel for the appellant-University, has allowed the writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Narain Vyas
[SAW-640/2023]
(2 of 4)
University, Jodhpur & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Sharma Etc. Etc., reported in (2022) 1 S.C.R. 842.
The case of the appellant-University before the learned Single Judge was that since the respondent was appointed through a placement agency and his appointment was illegal, the benefit of regularization can not be granted to him. It was also the case of the appellant-University before the learned Single Judge that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Sharma (Supra) is per incuriam.
While placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Official Liquidator Vs. Daynand & Ors., reported in (2008) 10 SCC, it was also contended before the learned Single Judge that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Sharma (supra) is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors Vs. Uma Devi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 .
Learned Single Judge has rejected the above contentions while observing as under:-
“On a pointed query being raised by the Court to the learned counsel for the respondents with respect to any difference between the set of employees who have approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petitions and the cases of those employees in whose favour the writ petitions were allowed by this Court on earlier occasions, the learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that there is no distinction between the set of employees in whose favour the matter has attained finality upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the present petitioners……….”
[SAW-640/2023]
(3 of 4)
“The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents to take a different view in these cases on the strength of the judgment relied upon by him in the case of Official Liquidator (supra) is noted to be rejected on the ground that there is no distinction between the two sets of employees in whose favour the judgments have been passed and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since in earlier decisions passed by this Court, the judgment of larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi (supra) has been taken note of and those decisions were assailed by way of filing Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same have been decided by a detailed judgment in the case of Mukesh Sharma (supra), therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that later decisions were per incuriam is not sustainable.”
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that since the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Sharma (supra) is contrary to the judgment passed by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors (supra), the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and taking into consideration the material available on record, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the said arguments in view of the fact that the respondent’s case is similar to the case of the persons, in whose favour the regularization order is passed by this Court, which has been affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
[SAW-640/2023]
(4 of 4)
It is unfortunate that the appellant-University is depriving the eligible employees from benefit of regularization, though the same relief has already been granted to the similarly situated persons by the directions of this Court and even in this case also, the appellant-University has recommended for regularization of the respondent vide communications dated 17.05.2022 and 03.06.2022 sent to the State Government, wherein it is mentioned that the case of the respondent is not distinguishable from the case of similarly situated persons, in whose favour the writ petitions have been allowed on earlier occasion and the matter has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This fact has specifically been noted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this intra court appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstance of the case, we are forced to comment that attempt on the part of appellant-University to deprive the benefit of regularization to the eligible employees cannot be appreciated.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
12-Hanuman/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an intra-cour appeal against the confirmation of an employee appointment order can succeed when the High Court's earlier view is affirmed by the Supreme Court in Mukesh Sharma.
Whether the appellant-University's contention that the Mukesh Sharma judgment is per incuriam because it allegedly contradicts Uma Devi is sustainable.
Whether the appellant-University, having recommended regularization, can be permitted to deprive eligible employees of the regularization benefit granted to similarly situated persons.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur & Anr. Vs. Mukesh SharmaReferred¶15
Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Sharma Etc. Etc., (2022) 1 S.C.R. 842 · Who else cites this
Official Liquidator Vs. DaynandDistinguished¶20
Official Liquidator Vs. Daynand & Ors., (2008) 10 SCC, · Who else cites this
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma DeviFollowed¶20
Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors Vs. Uma Devi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur
Rajendra Kumar
VIJAY BISHNOI
MUNNURI LAXMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
