Shyama Nand Tiwari vs. Union Of INDIA Thro.The Chairman, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, Dept.Of Revenue

Held

The Court held that the issue of regularization must be considered in light of the current service structure. Following the 6th Pay Commission Recommendation, Group-D posts have been merged into Group-C posts, meaning regularization can only be considered for Group-C category posts. The Part Time Casual Labourers (Regularization) Scheme of CBIC-2020, for regularization in Group-C service, mandates matriculation as the minimum educational qualification. The petitioners admittedly do not possess a matriculation certificate, being only 8th/9th Class Pass. The Court cited several Supreme Court judgments (State of M.P. vs. Shyama Pardi, Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P., Pramod Kumar vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission) establishing that appointments made without requisite qualifications are void ab initio and cannot be regularized. Therefore, both issues were answered against the petitioners. The Court found no reason to interfere with the CAT's decision, which had correctly considered the non-existence of Group-D posts and the eligibility criteria under the Scheme, 2020. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, Shyama Nand Tiwari and Prakash Sharma, have been working as casual labourers in the office of the Principal Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Ranchi, since 1995 and 1999 respectively. They claim to have worked continuously for over three decades. Their claim for regularization was rejected by an order dated 14.07.2022. The petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, Circuit Sitting at Ranchi, challenging this rejection. The CAT dismissed their original application on 13.02.2026, declining to issue any positive directions for regularization. Aggrieved by the CAT's order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization of their services as casual labourers, considering their long period of service, despite the alleged lack of prescribed educational qualifications under the Part Time Casual Labourers (Regularization) Scheme of CBIC-2020? Petitioner's argument: The petitioners contend that they have been working for approximately three decades and should be considered for regularization. They argue that the Scheme of 2020 does not prescribe any eligibility criteria for Class-IV employees, implying no educational qualification is required for them. They further state that their claim before the Tribunal was for regularization and not specifically under the Scheme of 2020. Respondent's argument: The respondents argue that after the 6th Pay Commission Recommendation, Group-D posts have been merged into Group-C posts, and no Group-D posts are available. For Group-C posts, the minimum educational qualification is matriculation. The petitioners, being only 9th Class Pass, do not possess the requisite qualification for Group-C posts. Therefore, their claims have been rejected as they are not eligible.