In Brief
Neelima Srivastava, a trained graduate teacher appointed in 1984 on a temporary leave-vacancy basis, challenged the state's refusal to regularize her services. An earlier 2006 High Court judgment had declared her entitled to hold the post and directed regularization; this judgment became final and unchallenged. A later Single Judge (2014) upheld regularization. However, a Division Bench (2018) reversed this, applying Uma Devi principles that generally prohibited regularization without formal procedures. The Supreme Court held that final inter-partes judgments cannot be collaterally reopened merely because underlying legal principles are later overruled. The 2006 judgment crystallized her right and remained binding. Moreover, her appointment—though irregular—was not illegal as she held prescribed qualifications, worked on sanctioned posts, and completed 23+ years, meeting Uma Devi's exception criteria. The appeal was allowed and the appellant declared entitled to regularization with consequential benefits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.