1- The order being passed today shall govern disposal of Writ Petition Numbers: 13483/2008, 12597/2008, 12775/2008, 12781/2008, 13020/2008, 13749/2008, 13757/2008, 14292/2008, 14293/2008, 304/2009, 562/2009, 13893/2009, 13894/2009, 13895/2009 and 704/2010 also.
2- Petitioners, who are working as daily wage employees in Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as 'RDVV'), have filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondent University in regularizing the individuals, who are arrayed as private respondents in all these petitions. It is the case of the petitioners that the process of regularization initiated by the University is illegal, therefore, they have sought for cancellation of the entire process of regularization. 3- While hearing all these cases, on 12.8.2010, this Court found that serious disputed questions of fact with regard to the process initiated for regularization is involved in the matter and, therefore, a detailed order was passed by this Court and the Chancellor of the University was directed to constitute a Committee of three members as has been indicated in the order and submit a report to this Court. The Committee so constituted was further directed to examine the cases of each individual employee, who has been regularized and submit a report with regard to the process of regularization initiated and the illegality, if any.
4- On the basis of the directions issued by this Court, a Committee was constituted consisting of Professor Gyanendra Singh Former Vice Chancellor, Chitrakoot Vishwavidyalaya nominee of the Chancellor; Professor Narendra Kumar Dhakad Additional Director in the Department of Higher Education, Indore Division representative of the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department; Shri Vishwanath Dubey Ex Chairman, M.P. Financial Corporation nominee of the Vice Chancellor; and, Shri R.D. Musalgaonkar Representative of the University. The Committee has submitted its Report dated 7.1.2011 and the Registrar of the University - Shri R.D. Musalgaonkar, has filed this Report alongwith his affidavit vide application filed on 12.1.2011. From a perusal of the Report it is seen that the Committee has examined the cases of regularization undertaken in the matter of 122 employees and it has found that about 40 employees are entitled to be regularized and in the case of other employees, certain objections have been pointed out by the Committee, in its Report.
5- Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, alongwith Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the interveners, and Shri Brajesh Choubey have pointed out to this Court that the main objection of the Committee with regard to regularization of the employees is based on the cut-off date fixed for considering the cases for regularization. It is pointed out by learned counsel for these respondents that the Committee, which conducted its deliberations and submitted the Report has taken note of the cut-off date fixed by the Circulars issued by the State Government. The Committee found that in accordance to the law laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, all such employees who have completed 10 years of service were entitled to be considered for regularization and the State Government had issued two circulars in this matter on 16.5.2008 and 6.9.2008. In these circulars the State Government had fixed the cut-off date as '10.4.2006' and, therefore, the Committee has opined that the cut-off date fixed for scrutiny of cases should have been the same as was fixed by the State Government, and the Selection Committee constituted by the University, which recommended for regularization of the employees, has fixed the cut-off date as '6.10.2008', which according to the Committee was not proper. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that the Committee constituted by this Court should have evaluated the cases of regularization on the basis of the said cut-off date i.e . '6.10.2008' and merely because the cut-off date fixed by the State Government as '10.4.2006' was not followed by the Selection/Scrutiny Committee, which ordered for regularization of the employees, interference should not be made in the matter and to that extent the Report now submitted to this Court by the Committee requires modification.
6- I have heard learned counsel for the parties on this question and perused the record.
7- It is clear that even though in the circulars issued by the State Government the cut-off date was fixed as '10.4.2006', but when the matter was placed before the Committee constituted by the University i.e . the Selection/Scrutiny Committee and when the said Committee conducted its meeting on 6.10.2008, the Committee thought it proper to fix the cut-off date as '6.10.2008' and the Committee has treated the aforesaid as the cut-off date for considering the eligibility of each candidates. In doing so, the Committee has not committed any error for the simple reason that most of the employees appointed in the University were of the year 1996 and thereafter and the Committee found that in all fairness and in the interest of justice the cut-off date should be fixed as the date on which the Committee met. Merely because the Selection/Scrutiny Committee considered the cases for regularization by fixing the date of its meeting i.e '6.10.2008' as the cut-off date for determining the eligibility criteria, the same cannot be treated as illegal. The respondent University is a creation of the Statute and the Committee appointed to scrutinize the cases of the daily wage employee has a right to fix a reasonable date for fixing the cut-off date, for scrutiny of the cases and for determining the eligibility criteria. In the absence of any malafide or statutory violation pointed out in the matter, I am of the considered view that a date reasonable fixed by the Committee i.e '6.10.2008' need not be disturbed. To that extent, objections raised by the private respondents with regard to the Report now submitted by the High Power Committee (i.e the Committee appointed as per directions of this Court) warrants consideration. Accordingly, the Report submitted by the High Power Committee stands modified to the extent that the cut- off date fixed for considering the case of employees, who have completed 10 years of service, shall be treated as '6.10.2008' and not as '10.4.2006', as fixed by the High Power Committee appointed by this Court. To that extent, the Report submitted by the High Power Committee appointed by this court stands modified.
8- Accordingly, after considering the cut-off date to be '6.10.2008', Registrar of the University is directed to scrutinize the cases of each individual employee, who has been regularized and if the High Power Committee has found any irregularity in the regularization of any employee, apart from treating that employee to not have completed 10 years of service with reference to the cut-off date fixed by it as '10.4.2006', the Registrar shall be free to proceed in the matter by issuing notice to the employee concerned pointing out the irregularity in his appointment, hear his defence and thereafter take steps for cancelling his regularization in accordance with law. However, in case of such of the employees, who fulfil all the criteria laid down for regularization, their claim for regularization shall not be cancelled only on the ground that they do not fulfil the criteria of completing 10 years of service, as on 10.4.06, instead treating the criteria for fulfilling the 10 years of service to be '6.10.08', the Registrar shall proceed in the matter. Registrar shall regularize the cases of all such employees, who have completed 10 years of service with requisite qualification as on '6.10.2008' and in whose case no other irregularity is pointed out by the High Power Committee appointed by this Court, based on the report submitted by the Committee, the Registrar shall proceed and take action in the matter. In case the Registrar feels that the service of any of the employee regularized is to be terminated in the light of the findings recorded by the High Power Committee appointed by this Court, it shall be incumbent for the Registrar to issue notice to the person concerned alongwith a copy of the Report, hear him, consider his defence and reply and thereafter pass a speaking order.
9- However, it is made clear that for the purpose of determining eligibility criteria of completing 10 years and acquiring the requisite qualification, the cut-off date shall be treated as '6.10.2008' and not as '10.4.2006'.
10- With the aforesaid modification to the Report submitted by the High Power Committee to this Court, on 7.1.2011, all these petitions are disposed of granting liberty to the Registrar to proceed in the matter. As far as the present petitioners are concerned, if they are still working as daily wage employee, the Registrar is directed to consider their cases for regularization in accordance to the circulars issued by the State Government on 6.9.2008 and 16.5.2008, and while considering their cases for regularization the cut-off date for acquiring the qualification and service of 10 years shall also be fixed as '6.10.2008' and their cases considered for regularization in accordance to the requirement of law and a final decision taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11- It may be pointed out that if apart from the persons, who are before this Court, any other person has been regularized by the University in pursuance to the recommendations of the Selection/Scrutiny Committee, which met on '6.10.2008', order passed in this case shall govern those cases also. While hearing the objections, if any, to the Report of the High Power Committee as may be submitted by any individual, on notice being issued by the Registrar, the Registrar shall be free to apply his own mind and take a decision in accordance to law, in case he finds that the findings recorded by the Committee has to be dealt with in a different manner. Liberty to that extent is granted to the Registrar by recording cogent reasons for the same and subject to approval of the Vice Chancellor of Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya.
12- With the aforesaid, all these petitions are allowed and disposed of. No orders as to cost.