'Favouritism Vitiates Administrative Action': MP High Court Quashes Order Denying Seniority; Directs Regularization At Par With Juniors

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an administrative order that denied seniority and regularization to a daily rated employee, observing that the authorities acted in an unreasonable and discriminatory manner, contrary to the constitutional mandates of equality (Article 14) and equal opportunity in public employment (Article 16). The petitioner, Shyam Verma, was appointed as a daily rated employee on April 9, 1990, while two private respondents were also appointed as daily wagers on July 24, 1991. Despite being juniors, the service of the respondents was regularised on February 25, 1992, while the petition's regularisation came much later. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed applications before the State Administrative Tribunal and writ petitions before the Court. The petitioner's service was regularised, but with the condition that she would not be entitled to any seniority or arrears of monetary benefits.In her writ petition, the court directed the State to decide the claim of benefits after striking out the condition. Following the court's order, a committee was constituted and granted the petitioner the same benefits as the private respondents. However, this recommendation was never implemented. Instead, a second meeting was convened on September 9, 2025, which reversed its earlier decision and concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to parity with private respondents. The petitioner argued that the decision of the second meeting was essentially the opinion of a single member, later altered to appear as a majority decision passed on September 20, 2025. The State argued that the private respondents had been directly appointed to regular posts and were treated as daily wagers only due to administrative sanction. "Thus, the explanation, which has been given by the authority in the order, is not plausible, legal and logical, therefore, cannot be accepted" the bench held. The court held that the authority 'just to deprive' the petitioner of her legitimate right had convened the second meeting. It was emphasized that, once in the earlier meeting, the issue was resolved by the members in a majority opinion, then there was no reason for recalling the meeting. The bench further reiterated that in every administrative decision, the authorities are expected to adhere to the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed; "Unreasonableness, discrimination and favouratism pollute the administrative process. Article 14 guarantees equal protection of law and equality before the law. No discrimination whatsoever can be done by the authorities by colourable exercise of power". Thus, the bench concluded that the impugned order failed the judicial scrutiny and therefore was liable to be quashed. It further directed the authorities to extend the benefit of regularization to the petitioner at par with the private respondents. Case Title: Shyama Verma v State [WP-5855-2018]Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 253For Petitioner: Advocate Sanjay RusiaFor State: Government Advocate Anshuman SwamyClick here to read/download the Order

'Favouritism Vitiates Administrative Action': MP High Court Quashes Order Denying Seniority; Directs Regularization At Par With Juniors

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags