Negative Discrimination Can't Be Claimed Under Articles 14 & 16 Referring To Persons Erroneously Regularized: Supreme Court

While considering a special leave petition assailing Jharkhand High Court's order with regards to claim for regularisation, the Supreme Court has observed that one cannot claim negative discrimination qua the persons who have been erroneously granted the benefit of regularisation under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka remarked that, "We do find that there are few employees in reference to which a complaint has been made, but one cannot claim negative discrimination qua the persons who have been erroneously granted the benefit of regularization under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."Factual Background Rajendra Badaik ("petitioner") who was appointed as a Night Watchman on April 6, 1985 was working on adhoc basis. The Government on June 18, 1993 came up with a resolution as per which the employees who had completed 240 days of regular work on or before August 1, 1985 were to be considered for regularization subject to the overall suitability. The petitioner's complaint was that his name was included in the list of 31 employees who were considered for regularization throughout but he was eliminated from being regularized on the post held by him because of duplicacy of one name.Since the factual statement was not made clear, the petitioner had approached the Top Court assailing the High Court's judgement. Supreme Court's AnalysisThe Top Court while dismissing the SLP also took into consideration the record as well as the affidavit which stated that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of regular work before August 1, 1985 as per the resolution. Perusing the same, it said that it was due to this that his name was not included in the list of employees who were regularized by the Committee in terms of the Circular/Resolution dated June 18, 1993.The bench also considered the submissions of petitioner's counsel that there were few employees who according to him had not completed 240 days on or before August 8, 1985 but were still regularised.Also Read : Article 14 Does Not Envisage Negative Equality; State Can't Be Forced To Perpetuate Same Mistake Committed With Respect To Others : Supreme CourtCase Title: Rajendra Badaik v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors| Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10207/2018Coram: Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS OkaCitation : LL 2021 SC 760Click Here To Read/Download Order

Negative Discrimination Can't Be Claimed Under Articles 14 & 16 Referring To Persons Erroneously Regularized: Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar

Tags