ORDER 1. This is the third visit of the petitioner knocking the doors of justice in the matter of redressal of her grievance against non-regularization as Assistant Grade III despite two orders passed by this Court i.e. order dated 22.8.2007 in Writ Petition No.1439/2004 (Annexure P-3), whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while upholding the award passed by the Labour Court dated 26.4.2004 with regard to reinstatement of the petitioner, though declined to award back wages. The Labour Court, upon adjudication of dispute on the following reference:- ^^lk{; dh mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij izFkei{k ds lanfHkZr fookn ds laca/k esa f}rh; i{k dh vksj ls dh xbZ lsok lekfIr dh dk;Zokgh dks voS/k o vuqfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj f}rh; i{k dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd izFke i{k dks iqu% fuŒJsŒfyŒ ds in ij fu;ksftr djsa vkSj fiNyk ipkl izfr'kr osru dk Hkqxrku djsa] mHk;i{k viuk&viuk O;; ogu djsaA** Had ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner as Lower Divisional Clerk, which is at par with Assistant Grade III. Thereafter, respondents reinstated the petitioner w.e.f. 26.4.2004 but continued her as daily wage employee. 2. Petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2322/2010(S). This Court while disposing of the said writ petition on 11.5.2011 has passed the following order :- “Respondents No.4 and 5 shall consider the claim of the petitioner for her regularization in their service in terms of their policy on regularization applicable to the petitioner and shall pass a speaking order within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order under intimation to the petitioner to enable her to avail her legal remedy against the said order, if occasion so arises.” 3. Respondents have passed the impugned order dated 8.12.2011 denying regularization to the petitioner for the reason that at the time of her initial appointment on 12.1.1994 as Assistant Grade III, the said appointment was not against any vacant post, therefore, initial appointment order of the petitioner was illegal and her reinstatement was only due to the order passed by the Labour Court. Under such circumstances, she does not hold the qualification for regularization in terms of the circular of the State Government dated 16.5.2007. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order. 4. Under such circumstances, she does not hold the qualification for regularization in terms of the circular of the State Government dated 16.5.2007. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order. 4. On notice, contesting respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit and placed on record the report of the scrutiny committee dated 8.12.2011, wherein the case of the petitioner was considered and not found fit for regularization for the following reasons:- ^^mi;qZDr fooj.k ds vuqlkj Jherh ikoZrh flag dh 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk gk;j lsds.Mjh ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ gS eŒizŒ uxjikfydk lsok ¼osrueku ,oa HkRrk½ fu;e ds vuqlkj lgk;d xzsM rhu in dh 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk gk;j lsds.Mjh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ ,oa fgUnh eqnzys[ku ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksuk vfuok;Z gSA bl izdkj Jherh ikoZrh flag HkrhZ fu;e vuqlkj in dh vfuok;Z ;ksX;rk fgUnh eqnzys[ku ijh{kk mRrh.kZ ugha gS ,oa Jherh ikoZrh flag fudk; esa iqu% Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds ikyu esa inLFk gSa vr% bUgsa fu;ferhdj.k gsrq mijksDrkuqlkj mYysf[kr funsZ'kksa ds ifjikyu vik=rk dh Js.kh esa ekuk x;k gSA ftyk p;u lfefr }kjk Jherh ikoZrh flag ds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j ds fu.kZ; dk ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fu;ferhdj.k gsrq okpu fd;k x;kA ;kfpdkdrkZ Jherh ikoZrh flag dks fu;ferhdj.k gsrq 'kklu ds ifji=ksa esa fn, x, funsZ'kkuqlkj 2 fcanq ds vHkko ds dkj.k fu;ferhdj.k gsrq vik= ekuk tkrk gSA vr% mDr leLr fcanqvksa ds ifjis{; esa Jherh ikoZrh flag nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh dks fu;ferhdj.k gsrq ik= u ik, tkus ds dkj.k ;g izdj.k vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA rn~laca/k esa ;kfpdkdrkZ dks lwfpr fd;k tk,A** 5. As such, two sets of orders have been passed viz. Annexure P-1 dated 8.8.2011 and Annexure R-1 dated 14.12.2011 with different reasons but claim of regularization was denied. 6. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it has been contended that petitioner fulfils the educational as well as other eligibility criteria, as she is higher secondary pass and also has the knowledge of typing at the time of appointment and since then she is performing duties of Assistant Grade III and doing typing work. The knowledge and experience certificate of typing dated 14.3.2002 issued from National Typing Institute, Hospital Road, Vidisha (M.P.) has also been placed on record. 7. The knowledge and experience certificate of typing dated 14.3.2002 issued from National Typing Institute, Hospital Road, Vidisha (M.P.) has also been placed on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the requirement of the eŒizŒ uŒikŒ lsok ¼osrueku rFkk HkRrk½ fu;e] 1967 dh vuqlwph 8 for appointment of Lower Divisional Clerk, requirement is:- ^^fuEu Js.kh fyfid&mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky; ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ gksus dk izek.k&i= ,oa eqnzys[ku dk KkuA** Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that she holds the qualification for regularization. Besides that, it is also contended that petitioner having been ordered to be reinstated in service by way of an Award passed by the Labour Court (supra), as affirmed by the High Court, respondents had no option but to reinstate the services of the petitioner. The reasons given in the impugned order for denial of regularization cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for regularization as Assistant Grade III. 8. Per contra, Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.3 contends that since petitioner was not appointed against any vacant post and also she did not fulfil educational and other eligibility criteria therefore, the reasons given in the impugned orders Annexures P-1 and R-1 cannot be faulted with and no relief as claimed in the petition can be given. 9. Undisputedly, petitioner was higher secondary pass and had also undergone typing training in a typing institute for which she has been issued an experience certificate. Though her services were terminated on 31.3.1995 but thereafter a dispute was raised by her and upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, reference was made to the Labour Court for the adjudication, as quoted above. 10. The Labour Court has passed an award ordering reinstatement with 50% back wages. The aforesaid award was challenged before this Court and this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No.1439/2004 on 22.8.2007 upheld the order of reinstatement of the petitioner but set aside the order of back wages and that order has attained finality. 11. Under such circumstances, respondents had no option but to take the petitioner in service. Petitioner though was reinstated w.e.f. 26.4.2004 but her claim for regularization was denied for the reasons indicated in the orders Annexures P-1 and R-1. 11. Under such circumstances, respondents had no option but to take the petitioner in service. Petitioner though was reinstated w.e.f. 26.4.2004 but her claim for regularization was denied for the reasons indicated in the orders Annexures P-1 and R-1. In the opinion of this Court, once the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated by this Court, then her appointment cannot be faulted with for the reason that the same was not against a vacant post, therefore the order - Annexure P-1 cannot withstand the test of reasonableness and is in direct contravention to the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 12. Moreover, the aforesaid justification for non regularization pales into insignificance in the light of the observations made by the scrutiny committee whereby petitioner has been denied regularization for the reason that she has not qualified typing examination. However, for want of such requirement under the Rules of 1967, the aforesaid reasons as indicated above is contradictory thereto. Consequently, the justification shown in the order Annexure R-1 also cannot withstand the test of reasonableness and is contrary to law. 13. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that since petitioner was denied to perform her duties from 1995 to 2004 and her claim for reinstatement was upheld by the labour Court; petitioner since 26.4.2004 is performing her duties as Assistant Grade III and doing all nature of jobs as required including typing work. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that even on the date of passing of the impugned orders; Annexure P-1 and Annexure R-1, petitioner held the required educational qualification for regularization and now at a distance of more than 13 years, she cannot be denied the aforesaid claim. 14. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Assistant Grade III w.e.f. 26.4.2004.