VIJAY PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) More than four decades ago, the Supreme Court, in case of B. Nagrajan vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 507, in clear terms, decided the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments. This has been consistent judicial approach that something, which is illegal, cannot be regularized or validated in the matter of public employment, though an irregularity can be regularized. Since, in both the writ applications, common question has arisen, as to whether this Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may direct regularization of services of the petitioners on the ground that they had worked as daily-wage employees under the Departments of the State Government for a long period of time, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by present common judgment and order.

(2.) Facts of the two cases need to be briefly taken note of before addressing the relief, which the petitioners are seeking, in the background of various judicial pronouncements.

(3.) There are seven petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 18023 of 2019, who claim that they were engaged on daily-wage basis in the office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Saharsa, discharging their duties as Gauge Reader and Canal Chowkidar prior to 1990. According to them, there was a policy decision of the State Government, contained in Resolution No. 5940 dated 18.06.1993, which stipulated that such daily-wage employees, who were engaged prior to 01.08.1985, would be given the benefit of regularization. Subsequently, the State Government came out with another resolution, issued by Memo No. 489 dated 10.05.5005, whereby the cut off date was extended from 01.08.1985 to 11.12.1990. By yet another resolution, issued by Memo No.369 on 16.03.2006, the State of Bihar decided to allow the benefit of regularization to all such daily-wagers, who had worked for a minimum period of 240 days prior to 11.12.1990. Claim of the petitioners for regularization is apparently based on the said Resolution dated 16.03.2006, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-2.