Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra appeared as part of the counsel team representing the parties before the Supreme Court of India in the Constitution Bench matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi & Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Representation Before the Supreme Court
The reported judgment records Sanjay R. Hegde, Saurabh Kirpal, Anil K. Mishra, A. Rohen Singh and other advocates among the counsel appearing in the connected appeals. Mr. Mishra was therefore part of the legal team appearing before the Supreme Court in this important service-law matter.
Nature of the Matter
The proceedings concerned the claims of persons who had been appointed on a temporary, daily-wage, ad hoc or contractual basis in government departments and public bodies and who sought regularisation of their services.
The Constitution Bench considered the constitutional requirements governing appointments to public employment, particularly the principles of equality of opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court examined whether persons who had entered public employment without following the prescribed recruitment process could claim regularisation merely because they had continued in service for a considerable period.
Mr. Mishra’s Recorded Role
The Supreme Court’s reported record identifies Anil K. Mishra among the advocates appearing in the matter. His verified role is therefore his participation as a member of the counsel team before the Constitution Bench.
The judgment does not separately identify or attribute a particular argument, submission, or legal proposition to Mr. Mishra by name. Consequently, no specific argument is attributed to him individually here.
Significance of the Matter
The decision in Umadevi became an important authority concerning regularisation of temporary and irregular appointments in public employment. The Constitution Bench emphasised that public appointments must ordinarily conform to the constitutional requirement of equality of opportunity and the applicable recruitment rules.
The Court held that continuation in temporary or irregular employment, by itself, does not create an automatic right to regularisation. At the same time, the judgment dealt with the position of certain employees who had already worked for a long period and who fell within the limited circumstances identified by the Court.
Verified Contribution
On the basis of the reported Supreme Court record, Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra’s role in the matter can accurately be described as counsel appearing in the proceedings as part of the legal team.
The record does not separately attribute any particular submission or argument to him. Accordingly, his individual role is stated only to the extent expressly supported by the judgment, without attributing any additional advocacy or argument to him that is not identified in the record.