Right to be regularized in accordance with the scheme continues till all the eligible daily wagers are absorbed, as per earlier judgment inter se parties : Supreme Court holds Umadevi’s case not applicable

The SC on July 26, 2021 {Vice Chancellor Anand Agriculture University vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela and Anr.} observed that it is no doubt true that in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1, it has been held that regularization as a one-time measure can only be in respect of those who were irregularly appointed and have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts. It was held by the SC, however, in the instant case the respondents are covered by the judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 574. It was held that this Court approved the proposed scheme of the State of Gujarat and directed regularization of all those daily wagers who were eligible in accordance with the scheme phase-wise.

It was further held by the Bench, comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao & Justice Aniruddha Bose, that the right to be regularized in accordance with the scheme continues till all the eligible daily-wagers are absorbed. It was held that Creation of additional posts for absorption was staggered by this Court permitting the appellant and the State of Gujarat to implement the scheme phase-wise. It was held that the court is not impressed with the submissions made on behalf of the university that the judgment of this Court in Umadevi’s case (supra) overruled the judgment in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra).

It was held by the SC that the earlier judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) inter parties has become final and is binding on the university. It was further held that even according to Para 54 of Uma Devi’s case, any judgment which is contrary to the principles settled in Umadevi shall be denuded of status as precedent. It was held that this observation at Para 54 in Umadevi’s case does not absolve the university of its duty to comply with the directions of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra).

The SC further observed that Division Bench of the High Court has taken note of the discriminatory approach of the university in conferring the benefit of regularization to some and not to all those daily wagers who are eligible. It was held that there is no error in the Judgment of the High Court which warrants interference by this Court. It was further held that eligible daily wagers in accordance with the scheme have been eagerly awaiting regularization as per the judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University’s case (supra). It was held that the right of the respondents for regularization has been correctly recognized by the High Court.

For the aforementioned reasons, the appeals were dismissed by the SC.