Employee terminated for issues in Education Qualifications, Rajasthan High Court orders reinstatement

The Rajasthan High Court has overturned an order that withdrew the regularization of a government employee based on a claim that he did not meet the required educational qualifications. The Court found that this action not only went against earlier directions by the Court’s division bench, which were also upheld by the Supreme Court, but it also violated legal precedents.

The Court pointed out that the issue of the employee’s educational qualifications was never raised during the earlier stages of litigation. Because this issue was brought up only later, the Court dismissed it as an “afterthought” and said it wasn’t valid to consider at this stage of the case.

Key Points from the Court’s Ruling

Justice Sameer Jain, who delivered the judgment, emphasized that the terms of employment, including qualifications, which were decided at the time of the employee’s appointment, should apply consistently and without retroactive changes. The Court also highlighted that the respondents (those who withdrew the regularization) failed to provide any valid reason for not following the directions given by the Court and Tribunal in earlier rulings.

The Court also rejected the respondents’ arguments that focused on the petitioner’s past conduct and the nature of his initial appointment, saying these reasons didn’t justify denying his regularization, especially after he had served for so long and followed the legal orders.

Background of the Case

The petitioner was first appointed as a Class IV employee at the Kumarappa National Handmade Paper Institute in 1992 but was terminated in 1994. After a long legal battle lasting over 10 years, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court ordered his reinstatement. However, he was again terminated shortly after.

In 2015, a court bench directed his reinstatement and the consideration of his regularization. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, and the Supreme Court also dismissed an appeal against it, reinforcing the petitioner’s right to reinstatement and regularization.

Despite these court orders, the respondents ignored the ruling and, in 2016, issued a regularization order. However, they soon withdrew this order, claiming that the petitioner was not qualified based on educational criteria.

The petitioner then filed a contempt petition against this action. The Rajasthan High Court, after hearing the case, emphasized that the issue of the petitioner’s qualifications had not been raised during the initial stages of the case, making it an improper argument at this point.

The Court’s Findings

The Court ruled that the respondents were bound by the decisions made by the courts, and any new requirements concerning the petitioner’s educational qualifications could not be used to withdraw his regularization. The Court clearly stated that the withdrawal of regularization directly contradicted the binding court orders, including those from the Supreme Court and the High Court.

The Court also pointed out that the petitioner had been working since 1992, and similar employees with equivalent qualifications had already been regularized. It referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Jaggo v Union of India & Ors., where the Court had made it clear that the qualifications required at the time of joining should apply to all similarly situated employees. Treating employees differently based on new, post-facto qualification requirements violated their rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court’s Decision

In the end, the Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the order that withdrew his regularization. The Court ordered that the petitioner’s services be regularized in the same manner as other similarly situated employees. The Court also imposed a cost of ₹2 lakh on the respondents (the Khadi and Village Industries Commission) for their failure to comply with judicial orders and for dragging the case into litigation unnecessarily.

• Download Court Order