Supreme Court of India ruled ad hoc employees without proper recruitment cannot be regularised under State policy. Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar upheld Haryana notifications, modifying earlier High Court decision.
The Supreme Court delivering a verdict that strictly enforced recruitment principles has ruled that government employees hired on a contractual or ad hoc basis without any public advertisement or interview cannot be made permanent under a State policy.
The a Bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar partly changed a 2018 decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and upheld two Haryana government notifications issued in June 2014 which regularised the services of eligible ad-hoc Group B, C, and D employees.
The Court invalidated two other notifications dated July 7, 2014, holding them arbitrary, particularly because they aimed at regularising appointments made without public advertisements or interviews. However, the Court doing “complete justice” protected those who were already continuing in service at the lowest pay scale, invoking its remedial powers under Article 142.
Background of the Dispute
In Haryana, for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors and other categories of employees falling under Groups ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’, the State used a continuing practice of engaging personnel on a contractual or ad hoc basis, depending on administrative requirements.
With the intent of regularising such employees, the State issued Notification dated 29.07.2011. This was done in pursuance of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006 INSC 216) and others, and sought regularisation of those who had completed not less than ten years as on 10.04.2006, and who were continued in service without any interim order by any tribunal or court. The policy expressly stated that the regularisation was being carried out as a “one time measure.”
Later, by Notification dated 16.06.2014, the State proposed regularisation of Group ‘B’ employees who were working on a contractual basis, who were in service as on 28.05.2014, and who had completed not less than three years as on that date. This was also described as a “one time measure”, stated to be undertaken on humanitarian grounds, and it further declared that in the future no similar appointments would be made against sanctioned posts.
Subsequently, Notification dated 18.06.2014 was issued for Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, following a similar date-based framework, for the purpose of regularising their services.
Finally, on 07.07.2014, another Notification was issued for Group ‘B’ employees who had “or would complete ten years’ service on 31.12.2018,” again stating this was an “one time measure” on humanitarian grounds. On the same date, similar Notifications were issued for Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees with the same type of cut-off period.
Judgment of the High Court
The Notifications dated 16.06.2014, 18.06.2014, and the two Notifications dated 07.07.2014 were challenged in Writ Petition No. 17206 of 2014. Two petitioners in that writ petition and other applicants sought regularisation of their services.
The High Court considered all petitions together and held that the impugned Notifications were “bad in law” because their effect was to violate the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in multiple decisions concerning regularisation of contractual/ad hoc/daily wage employees.
It concluded that the failure to adopt regular recruitment methods after Umadevi could not be treated as an administrative necessity. It further noted that the recruitment advertisements invited applications for contractual appointments; hence, candidates who may have preferred regular recruitment might not have applied for contractual posts.
The High Court also found that no special circumstances were shown to justify bypassing regular recruitment. Although the Notification dated 29.07.2011 described regularisation as a “one time measure,” the High Court observed that the later impugned Notifications repeatedly used the same “one time measure” language, which it viewed as an attempt to perpetuate the very illegality that Umadevi sought to prevent.
The High Court further stated that there was no basis for the appointees to claim any legitimate expectation, since the policy decisions were in breach of the Supreme Court’s settled law. The Court also indicated that these Notifications appeared to have been issued to achieve political objectives ahead of elections scheduled for October 2014, resulting in the regularisation of what it considered “back door entries.”
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Notifications dated 16.06.2014, 18.06.2014, and the two Notifications dated 07.07.2014. It also directed that any benefits already granted would stand withdrawn.
However, taking note that these appointments were made to perform work across various departments, the High Court allowed the appointees to continue for six months from the date of its judgment. During that period, it directed the State to ensure that vacant sanctioned posts were advertised and that the selection process was completed. It also directed age relaxation to enable the appointees to participate in the renewed recruitment process as per the High Court’s directions.
Writ petitions seeking regularisation were allowed insofar as they challenged the Notifications, while other petitions seeking regularisation were dismissed.
Supreme Court Proceedings and Competing Arguments
The appeals arose from a common judgment dated 31.05.2018, where the State of Haryana challenged the quashing of its 2014 Notifications on regularisation. Beneficiaries and contractual employees also appealed, while several intervenors supported the State. Conversely, original petitioners opposed the appeals and defended the High Court’s ruling denying regularisation.
The State and employees argued that the Notifications were a valid exercise of executive power under Article 162, citing administrative necessity and reliance on precedents like Ram Jawaya Kapur and M.L. Kesari. They contended that appointments were merely irregular, not illegal, and that denying regularisation would cause hardship and disrupt administration despite existing vacancies.
The respondents and amicus curiae maintained that regularisation violated constitutional principles under Articles 14 and 16 and bypassed recruitment rules under Article 309. They stressed that Umadevi limits such measures, rejected claims of legitimate expectation, and emphasized fair competition, proper recruitment, and strict adherence to constitutional and statutory frameworks.
Observations of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court analysed Umadevi in detail, reaffirming the principle that purely contractual appointments cannot be regularised merely on the basis of length of service.
It said,
“The exercise undertaken… cannot be questioned on the ground of arbitrariness, illegality or as being the outcome of a mala fide exercise of executive power”
At the same time, it accepted that regularisation may fall within permissible boundaries where:
- the appointment was made on sanctioned posts,
- the employee possessed required qualifications at the time of entry, and
- continued service exists in situations consistent with Umadevi’s exception for long-serving irregular appointees.
In evaluating the June notifications, the Court found they revived a withdrawn 1996 policy in a manner that broadly respected the conditions of entry on sanctioned posts and eligibility at the relevant time. Therefore, the Court rejected the High Court’s blanket view for these June measures.
The July notifications were treated differently. The Court found that they:
- explicitly covered appointments made without advertisement and without interviews, and
- attempted to cover them through a cut-off extending to 2018,
without adequate justification.
The Bench also recorded concerns about the absence of documentation about the manner of engagement, describing it as not inspiring confidence thereby supporting the conclusion that the July notifications were arbitrary.
It said,
“Absence of any record whatsoever of the manner of engagement does not inspire any confidence in such process.”
Order
The Supreme Court:
- Set aside the High Court’s quashing of the June 16/18, 2014 notifications, thereby allowing eligible employees to seek regularisation benefits subject to verification.
- Struck down the July 7, 2014 notifications as arbitrary.
- Still ensured that those already continuing at the lowest pay scale (and similarly placed intervenors) were not thrown out, applying protection under Article 142 to avoid severe hardship after long years of service.
The court Ordered,
“In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 for incumbents) under (A permit such… ad hoc employees who are continuing in service… at the lowest pay scale.”
Employees denied regularisation by the High Court were left free to re-approach for reconsideration in line with the Supreme Court’s directions.
Case Title: Madan Singh v State of Haryana
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE