The Court held that practical experience alone does not suffice for regularization into a technical post such as electrician; the absence of an essential technical qualification, like an ITI certificate, is fatal to such a claim. The judgment upholds prior precedent on the necessity of statutory qualifications, distinguishing earlier cases dealing with non-technical or clerical posts. It reaffirms the binding precedent within the court’s jurisdiction and provides persuasive authority elsewhere, with specific implications for public employment regularization cases in technical roles.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/4502/2021 of ASHWANI KUMAR Vs STATE OF HP AND ANR |
| CNR | HPHC010211042021 |
| Date of Registration | 12-08-2021 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench: Justice Satyen Vaidya |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Himachal Pradesh High Court; persuasive in other jurisdictions |
| Type of Law | Service Law – Regularization in Public Employment |
| Questions of Law | Whether long experience without necessary technical qualification entitles an employee to regularization in a technical post? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner worked since 1991 as an electrician but was regularized as a beldar from 2002. Sought regularization as electrician, citing past judgments and service records. Lacked ITI qualification despite opportunity/training recommendation. Sought parity with another similarly situated individual. The department cited non-availability of cadre/post and non-possession of essential qualifications as reasons for denial. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court in matters regarding technical qualifications for public employment regularization |
| Follows |
|
| Distinguishes |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Strong reaffirmation that technical posts (like electrician) require formal statutory qualifications regardless of length of service.
- Distinguishes between technical (requiring certification) and non-technical roles in the context of regularization.
- Negative parity (asserting a right based on allegedly wrongful benefit given to another) is expressly rejected as a ground for judicial relief.
- Relief under Bhagwati Prasad’s ratio is confined to non-technical or specifically excepted cases via service rules.
- Lack of cadre/post in department is a valid ground for rejecting regularization claim.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first recited the petitioner’s long service as an electrician but identified the pivotal impediment: the absence of the essential technical qualification (ITI certificate) by the petitioner.
- The Court analyzed the applicability of Supreme Court precedent in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, noting the distinction that Bhagwati Prasad pertained to non-technical posts, whereas the current case involved a purely technical role.
- The Court distinguished Sita Ram v. HPSEBL, pointing out that in Sita Ram, relevant service rules permitted promotion based on experience alone, which was not the case here.
- The Court noted that the department’s non-availability of the requisite cadre (Assistant Electrician) was uncontested by the petitioner, strengthening the denial.
- Considered and rejected the petitioner’s plea for parity based on benefits allegedly conferred on another, ruling that the Court cannot order illegality to be perpetuated because it may have, in the past, occurred.
- Dismissed the petition as meritless on these legal and factual foundations.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Claimed entitlement to regularization as electrician based on long service in the post since 1991.
- Asserted that extensive experience compensates for lack of formal technical qualification.
- Relied on Bhagwati Prasad (SC) and two High Court judgments (Virender Singh and Sita Ram).
- Pressed plea of discrimination, alleging a similarly situated colleague had received departmental benefit.
Respondent (State):
- Cited mandatory need for ITI certificate for post of electrician.
- Pointed out that petitioner had not acquired said qualification despite being offered training.
- Stated there was no cadre of Assistant Electrician available for such regularization.
- Argued that any benefit mistakenly given to another cannot be extended as a right to the petitioner to perpetuate illegality.
Factual Background
The petitioner had been engaged as an electrician (since March 1991) on a daily wage basis and was ultimately regularized as a beldar from December 2002. Having continued to perform electrician’s duties, he sought to have his services regularized in that category, citing experience and similar treatment allegedly extended to others. Prior litigation had focused on his representation, which was ultimately rejected by the competent authority in September 2015 for lack of the requisite technical qualification and cadre/post. The petitioner did not hold an ITI certificate and had not completed the recommended training. Other petitions on related reliefs had been withdrawn or disposed of on technical grounds.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court discussed the service rules applicable to public employment regarding regularization, specifically focusing on the stipulated requirement of an ITI certificate for the post of electrician.
- No interpretation or reading down of statutory provisions was undertaken; instead, the statutory requirement was treated as binding and inflexible in technical employments.
- The Court considered, but rejected, the argument that experience could substitute for statutory minimum qualification in a technical role.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms and distinguishes existing precedent, particularly regarding technical eligibility requirements for public appointment regularization.