SANTOSH KUMAR PATRA vs STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/22932/2019
ODHC010662452019
2026:OHC:88
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019
CNR No.ODHC010662452019
In the matter of an Application under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950
*
Santosh Kumar Patra
Aged about 43 years
Son of Bipin Kumar Patra
Plot No.1F/172, Markat Nagar
P.O.: Avinab Bidanasi
District: Cuttack, Pin: 753 014
At present working as
Laboratory Attendant in
Computer Science Department
Shailabala Women’s Autonomous College
At: Mission Road, P.O.: Buxibazar
District: Kataka. … Petitioner
-V ERSUS -
1. State of Odisha
Represented through
Commissioner- cum -Secretary
Higher Education Department
At: Secretariat Building, P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
2. Director
Higher Education, Odisha
At: Heads of the Department Building
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 1 of 112

P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha.
3. Principal
Shailabala Women’s Autonomous College
Kataka, Mission Road
P.O.: Buxi Bazar
District: Kataka. … Opposite parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : M/s. Biswabihari Mohanty,
Manas Harichandan,
Sushree Sangita Sahu, Advocates
For the Opposite parties : Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal,
Additional Government Advocate
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing : 18.08.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 07.09.2026
J UDGMENT
The petitioner, a Laboratory Attendant in Computer
Science Department of Shailabala Women’s
(Autonomous) College, Katak, filed this writ petition
under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of
India beseeching grant of following relief(s):
“Under the above circumstances it is therefore humbly
prayed that the Hon‟ble Court be graciously pleased to
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 2 of 112

quash the Order dated 09.08.2019 under Annexure-11
and may direct the opposite parties No.1 and 2 for
regularize the service of the petitioner and financial
benefits treating him at par with one Anam Charan Nayak
against the substantive vacancy of Class-III available in
Shailabala Women‟s Autonomous College, Kataka and
forthwith or within time to be stipulated by this Hon‟ble
Court.
And pass any other order/orders or direction/directions
be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner.
And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the
petitioner shall ever pray.”
The facts:
2. The narration of factual matrix adumbrated revealed
that the petitioner, Bachelor in Arts with Honours and
Diploma in Computer Science, being engaged by Order
dated 01.12.2000 of the Principal, Shailabala Women’s
Autonomous College (for short, “SWAC”) in terms of the
decision of the Governing Body, joined against vacant
post of Laboratory Attendant in Computer Science
Department. In addition thereto, he has been
discharging varieties of duties as assigned from time to
time, to illustrate, Laboratory in Chemistry Department/
Education Department/Mathematics Department and
Psychology Department, as and when instructed by
order of the Principal. He was also engaged to assist in
the Post-Graduation Admission and in smooth conduct
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 3 of 112

of the Examination. Hence, the petitioner has been
discharging his duties in the College continuously and
uninterruptedly since 01.12.2000 against said post till
date.

2.1. Order No.384, dated 28.02.2004 issued by the Principal,
SWAC depicts that the petitioner, an outsider engaged
with the work of menials in the Computer Science
Department would be paid from Self-Financing Scheme
Fund of the Computer Science Department and he
would be paid daily remuneration. Vide Office Order
dated 24.06.2008 issued by the Principal of SWAC, it is
transpired that the petitioner was directed to work in the
+3 Chemistry Laboratory.

2.2. The Government of Odisha in Department of Higher
Education issued Letter No.32631— HE-FE-III-MISC-
166/2013/HE, dated 28.12.2013 instructed different
Colleges to fill up various posts inter alia post of
Laboratory Attendant. Though against thirty-one
sanctioned posts in SWAC only twelve posts of
Laboratory Assistants were in position, three posts were
directed to be filled up “by direct recruitment on
contractual basis”.
The petitioner continuing with the work entrusted to him
2.3.
on contractual basis along with other employees filed
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 4 of 112

representation before the Principal, SWAC for
regularization in service. Accordingly, the Principal by
Letter dated 06.07.2010 drew attention of the Director,
Higher Education, Odisha seeking necessary permission
for regularization by recording satisfaction of discharge
of duties entrusted to the employees. In the said letter,
while the name of the petitioner was shown against the
post of Laboratory Attendant in Computer Science
Department, the name of one Anama Charan Nayak was
reflected against the post of Night Watchman. It was also
clearly mentioned therein that both the petitioner and
Sri Anama Charan Nayak were being paid remuneration
from Self-Financing Fund Scheme of Computer Science
and Information Technology Department.
2.4. Both the posts of the Laboratory Attendant and the
Night Watchman are posts in the category of Group-
D/Class-IV. The petitioner and Sri Anama Charan Nayak
were being paid remuneration from the Self-Finance
Fund of Computer Science and Information Technology
Department. Relevant portion of the Letter dated
06.07.2010 is extracted hereunder:
With reference to the letter and subject cited above, I
“
want to inform you that the following private persons have
been engaged in this college for a long time on a simple
consolidated remuneration on a truly temporary basis
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 5 of 112

drawing monthly remuneration from both the Self-Finance
(Computer Science and IT) and College Development Fund.
A) Self Finance Fund (Computer Science & Information
Technology) Department
i. Sri Santosh Patra, Laboratory Attendant,
Computer Science.
ii. Sri Anama Charan Nayak, Night Watchman,
Computer Science & Information Technology
Attendant, SAMS Lab.
iii. Sri Manoj Sahoo, Laboratory Attendant,
Information Technology-cum-Day Watchman,
Information Technology & Post-Graduation
Department of History.
B) College Development Fund
i. Sri Basant Kumar Barik, Day Watchman
working at the Main Gate of Arts Block.
ii. Sri Suvendu Kumar Behura, Day Watchman
working at the Main Gate of Science Block.
Apart from their normal work at the concerned
Departments and College gates and inside the Campus,
they also help in conducting admission work, College/
University/Council and Public examinations, works in the
hostels and other works assigned to them from time to
time. Their works have been satisfactory and they help in
the smooth functioning of the administration of the college.
Under the above mentioned circumstances I may kindly be
permitted to bring their engagement under daily wage
basis maintaining the status quo of drawal of
remuneration, not less than the present prescribed rates of
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 6 of 112

the Labour & Employment Department, from the above
two heads (Self-Finance Fund & College Development
Fund) from which they are drawing their monthly
remuneration, observing the prescribed guidelines as
suggested.”

2.5. The Principal, SWAC, Kataka issued Office Order vide
Memo No.1714, dated 31.08.2010, acknowledging the
engagement of the petitioner as Laboratory Attendant in
the Computer Science (Self-Finance) on contractual
basis. In pursuance of the recommendation made by the
Principal, SWAC on 31.08.2010, the Government in
Higher Education Department posed certain queries
from the Director, Higher Education, Odisha in Letter
dated 05.08.2014.

2.6. While matter stood thus, Anama Charan Nayak, working
as Night Watchman and drawing remuneration out of
the Self-Financing Fund for Course of the Computer
Science and Information Technology Department,
approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar by way of filing Original
Application under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, which was registered as O.A.
No.1181 of 2014. The learned Administrative Member,
Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Bhubaneswar while disposing of the said Original
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 7 of 112

th
Application vide Order dated 24 March, 2015 observed
as follows:
“ On perusal of the records it is evident from the
certificates issued by the Principal and Superintendent of
S.B. Women‟s College that the applicant was initially
engaged as Day Watchman since 1988 and thereafter
engaged as Night-watchman-cum-Jhadudar in Computer
Science Department and Information Technology by the
Office Order No.1155 dated 20.6.2008 of the Principal of
the College (Annexure-2 series). In the above backdrop, it
is concluded that the applicant has continued as casual
worker being entrusted with different duties of a Class IV
employee for more than ten years in the college, the
respondents are directed to consider the case of the
applicant for his regularization in any available Class IV
post keeping in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble
1
Supreme Court (supra) and the Resolution of F.D.
No.WFI-24/97-22764/F dated 15.05.1997.
The above exercise be complied within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”
2.7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State
Government approached this Court by way of filing a
writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India which was registered as W.P.(C) No.1891 of 2016
and the same came to be disposed of vide Order dated
01.03.2016 with the following observation:

1
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806 = (2006) 4 SCC 1
and State of Karnataka Vrs. M.L. Kesari, AIR 2010 SC 2587 = (2010) 9 SCC 247.
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 8 of 112

Heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the
“
State.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 24.03.2015, passed by the Orissa Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar, in O.A. No.1181
of 2014, directing the petitioners-respondent to consider
the case of the applicant-opposite party No.1 for his
regularization in any available Class-IV post, in view of
the decisions of the apex Court in the cases of Uma Devi
(AIR 2006 SC 1806) and M.L. Kesari (AIR 2010 SC-2587)
and the Resolution of F.D. No.WFI-24/97-22764/F, dated
15.05.1997.
Considering the submissions made, we do not find any
infirmity in the impugned order so as to warrant any
interference.
The writ petition being devoid of merits, the same is
accordingly dismissed.
”
2.8. The Government of Odisha in Department of Higher
Education by Letter bearing No.35754— HE-FE-III-
CASE-130/16, dated 19.12.2016 extended the benefit to
Sri Anama Charan Nayak by regularising him in service.
Nonetheless, the recommendation of the Principal,
SWAC regarding regularization in service of the
petitioner was kept pending with the Government.
2.9. By virtue of the Office Order dated 31.08.2010 issued by
the Principal, SWAC (Annexure-8) engaging the
petitioner as Laboratory Assistant in the Department of
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 9 of 112

Computer Science (Self-Finance) on contractual basis,
he has been discharging duties entrusted in different
Departments even on holidays as and when required.
Stating the facts, a representation dated 17.04.2017 was
submitted to the Principal Secretary to Government of
Odisha in Higher Education Department (Annexure-10)
for consideration of his regularisation in service. That
being not taken up expeditiously, the petitioner
approached the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
Kataka Bench, Kataka invoking provisions of Section 19
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by way of
filing Original Application bearing No.3917(C) of 2017,
which was disposed of on 15.01.2018 with a direction to
consider said representation. Instead of considering the
prayer of the petitioner for regularisation in service
maintaining parity with the case of Sri Anama Charan
Nayak, a similarly situated employee drawing
remuneration out of the funds allocated to Self-
Financing Course, the Commissioner- cum- Secretary to
Government of Odisha by Order dated 09.08.2019
rejected the claim of the instant petitioner with the
following observations and reasoning:
“ *
Whereas, in pursuance of the above order of the Hon‟ble
Tribunal, the matter has been thoroughly examined on the
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 10 of 112

basis of information received from appropriate quarters
and the following facts came into light:
1. Sri Santosh Kumar Patra was engaged as a
temporary worker by the Principal, Sailabala
Women‟s College, Cuttack in the year 2000 with
intermittent break of engagements. While continuing
as such, the Principal, Sailabala Women‟s College
engaged him as Laboratory Attendant in the
Department of Computer Science (Self Finance) vide
Office Order dated 31.08.2010.

2. It could be seen that the relied employee namely Sri
Anam Ch. Nayak was appointed during 1988 in a
Class-IV post in the Self-Financing Computer &
Information Technology Department of the College.
After working for a long period on contract basis, Sri
Anam Ch. Nayak filed OA No. 1181 of 2014 for
regularization of his service and Hon‟ble Odisha
Administrative Tribunal passed Order on
24.03.2015 in his favour. Though State Government
had challenged the Order in W.P.(C) No.1891 of
2016, the same was dismissed and ultimately Sri
Nayak was regularised in service.
3. In the present case, the applicant, Sri Patra is not
similarly placed like Sri Anama Charon Nayak
whose service has been regularized keeping in view
the scheme for absorption of N.M.R./D.L.R./Job
Contract Workers under Regular Establishment of
Finance, Department vide Resolution No. 22764/F,
dated 15.05,1997. The motto of the scheme was that
the workers should have worked under the
administrative control of the Department concerned
directly for a minimum period of 10 years, and they
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 11 of 112

should have been engaged prior to 12.04.1993 i.e.
prior to promulgation of ban on engagement of
N.M.R./D.L.R/Job Contract Workers etc. vide
Finance Department Circular No. 17815-WF-II-
180/92-F., dated the 12th April 1993,
4. As per General Administration Department
Resolution No.26108/Gen., Dated the 17th
September, 2013, the following are the mandatory
eligibility conditionality for regularization of
contractual appointees/engagements:

(i) Contractual appointments/engagements must
have been made against contractual posts
created with the concurrence of Finance
Department on abolition of the corresponding
regular posts or contractual posts created with
the concurrence of Finance Department without
abolition of any corresponding regular post in
case of new offices or for strengthening of the
existing offices/services,

(ii) Such contractual appointments/engagements
must have, been made following the
recruitment procedure prescribed for the
corresponding regular posts, and

(iii) Principle of reservation of Posts must have
been followed in case of such contractual
appointments / engagements.
5. It transpires from the Office Order dated 31.08.2010
of Principal, S.B. Women‟s Auto College, Cuttack that
considering his length of engagement, his overall
good performance in the work assigned to him and
his qualification, he was engaged as Laboratory
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 12 of 112

Attendant by the Principal. But such engagement
was not in consonance with the guidelines
prescribed by General Administration Department.

6. So, the prayer of the applicant to regularize him in
the post of Laboratory Attendant and to extend
consequential service and financial benefits at par
with one Anam Charan Naik is not tenable in the
eyes of law.
7. Now, therefore, in view of the facts stated supra, the
claim of Sri Patra for regularization in any vacant
post in Sailabala Women‟s College does not merits
any consideration and hence rejected.
The representation of the applicant is accordingly
disposed of.”

2.10. Assailing said rejection order, this writ petition has been
filed.
Hearing:

3. Notices in the writ petition were issued vide Order dated
27.11.2019, pursuant to which the opposite party Nos.1
and 2 filed counter affidavit on 18.02.2020 and the
opposite party No.3 filed response on 17.01.2020.
3.1. The petitioner has been waiting for his turn to have
favourable consideration of regularisation in service
having worked with the College in different Departments
since 2005, if not with effect from 01.12.2000.
Discriminatory treatment being meted out to him vice Sri
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 13 of 112

Anama Charan Nayak, who was also paid from Self-
Financing Fund, the petitioner has flagged issue of
violation of mandate of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the
Constitution of India.

3.2. On the consent of counsel appearing for both the sides,
the matter was taken up for final hearing.
3.3. Having heard Sri Biswabihari Mohanty, learned
Advocate for the petitioner; and Sri Jayant Kumar Bal,
learned Additional Government Advocate and after
conclusion of the hearing, the matter is kept reserved for
preparation and delivery of Judgment.
Rival contentions and submissions:
4. Sri Biswabihari Mohanty, learned Advocate objecting to
the fact reflected in the counter affidavit filed by the
SWAC (opposite party No.3) submitted that having
recommended the case of the petitioner for
regularisation to the appropriate authority in the
Government, it is unethical on the part of the Principal
to dispute the date of engagement. Though the petitioner
was engaged in the College on daily wage basis since
01.12.2000, the opposite party No.3 nevertheless
enclosing document dated 02.04.2001 with the counter
affidavit as Annexure-B/3 conceded that he was engaged
as temporary peon on 02.04.2001 with monthly
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 14 of 112

payment. Said document placed a condition that he
would have to work from 8.00 O’clock in the morning till
evening 4.00 O’clock. Document being Letter No.2310,
dated 05.09.2005 at Annexure-A/3 indicates that the
petitioner was engaged with effect from 01.05.2005.
Other documents enclosed to the counter affidavit of the
opposite party No.3, e.g ., Annexure-C/3, Annexure-D/3,
Annexure-E/3 demonstrate that the petitioner has been
engaged to do the work in different Departments of the
College. Document at Annexure-K/3 reveals that the
petitioner was assigned with +2 Examination in the
month of March, 2001. Annexure-M/3 is a document
which shows that the Principal, SWAC engaged the
petitioner as attendant temporarily in the Computer
Science Department (Self-Financing). It is vehemently
contended by Sri Biswabihari Mohanty, learned
Advocate that the documents available on record as
placed by the opposite parties clinch that the petitioner
has been working in the College since 2005, if the
College disputes his engagement since 2001. He asserted
the fact as averred at paragraph 6 of the writ petition
that the petitioner was engaged with effect from
01.12.2000. He would draw attention of this Court to
Letter vide Memo No.1217, dated 06.07.2010 issued by
the Principal, SWAC to indicate that the Director of
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 15 of 112

Higher Education Department was apprised about the
fact as follows:
“With reference to the letter and subject cited above, I
want to inform you that the following private persons
have been engaged in this College for a long time on a
simple consolidated remuneration on a truly temporary
basis drawing monthly remuneration from both the Self-
Finance (Computer Science and Information Technology)
and College Development Fund.
A) Self-Finance Fund (Computer Science and
Information Technology) Department
i. Sri Santosh Patra, Laboratory Assistant,
Computer Science.
ii. Sri Anama Charan Naik, Night Watchman,
Computer Science and Information Technology
Attendant, SAMS Laboratory.
iii. Sri Manoj Sahoo, Laboratory Attendant,
Information Technology-cum-Day Watchman,
Information Technology and Post-Graduation
Department of History.
” *

4.1. It is submitted by Sri Biswabihari Mohanty, learned
Advocate that invidious distinction being made by the
Commissioner- cum -Secretary only to dissuade himself to
discharge his responsibility to accord permission to
regularise the petitioner in service although Sri Anama
Charan Nayak, who was getting payment by utilising
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 16 of 112

Self-Financing Fund. Having exploited the petitioner for
around 26 years, if engagement is taken with effect from
01.12.2000, by engaging him on temporary basis and
paying paltry amount for discharging duty assigned by
the College Authorities, the opposite parties at this
juncture should not avoid taking steps to regularise him
in his service. It is borne on record that vacancy still
exists in the post of Laboratory Assistant. Strong
reliance is placed on a document indicating vacancy
position of non-teaching staff signed by the Principal,
SWAC on 11.02.2025 which depicts that against thirty-
four sanctioned posts of Laboratory Attendant, twenty-
four posts are shown to have been lying vacant.

4.2. It is vociferously urged by Sri Biswabihari Mohanty,
learned Advocate that on flimsy ground and bereft of
rationality coupled with reasoning having no substance
vis-a-vis evidence available on record, the Commissioner-
cum- Secretary has rejected the representation of the
petitioner by Order dated 09.08.2019 (Annexure-11).

4.3. Referring to paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it is
asserted that the post of Laboratory Attendant does
come within the fold of Group-D/Class-IV category of
employees. The appointment/engagement of the
petitioner falls within the ambit of Category-I spelt out in
the Odisha Group-C and Group-D Posts (Contractual
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 17 of 112

Appointment) Rules, 2013, which at the relevant point of
time stood thus:
“ 4. Categorisation of existing Contractual Employees.—
For the purpose of these rules all contractual
appointments made prior to the commencement of
these rules shall be classified into two categories;
namely:
(a) Category I: Contractual appointments/ engagements
made against contractual posts created with the
concurrence of Finance Department without
following the recruitment procedure including the
Odisha Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and
Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes) Act, 1975 and the rules made thereunder
and rules regulating recruitment for the regular
posts.
(b) Category II: Contractual Engagements made through
manpower service provider agencies with
concurrence of Finance Department.”

4.4. The service of the petitioner, it is claimed by Sri
Biswabihari Mohanty, learned Advocate, is required to
be regularized against the substantive sanctioned post of
Laboratory Attendant and lying vacant in the College.
5. Referring to stand taken in the counter affidavits filed by
the opposite parties, Sri Jayant Kumar Bal, learned
Additional Government Advocate argued that the
petitioner has rightly been denied regularisation in
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 18 of 112

service inasmuch as he was never engaged against any
sanctioned post.
5.1. Relying on the reason assigned in Order dated
09.08.2019 of the Commissioner- cum- Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Sri Jayant Kumar Bal, learned
Additional Government Advocate submitted that the
petitioner being engaged on temporary basis and paid
remuneration utilising Self-Finance Fund, he is not
entitled to be considered for regularisation in service.
Analysis:

6. Undisputed factual matrix emerge from the papers made
available on record reveals:
i. Sri Santosh Kumar Patra is engaged as Laboratory
Attendant in Shailabala Women’s College, Kataka
on contractual basis. [First paragraph of the
impugned Order dated 09.08.2019 of
Commissioner- cum- Secretary, vide Annexure-11].
ii. Considering application of the petitioner, he was
engaged on daily wage of Rs.70/- with effect from
01.09.2005 vide Letter No.2310, dated 05.09.2005
of the Principal SWAC vide Annexure-A/3 of the
counter affidavit filed by the opposite party No.3,
though the petitioner claimed that his initial
engagement was 01.12.2000. In the counter
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 19 of 112

affidavit of the opposite party No.3 it is candidly
admitted as follows:
“The Letter No.2310, dated 05.09.2005 was issued
to the petitioner as a peon in the Computer Science
Department which fixed remuneration at Rs.70/-
(Rupees seventy) only on a daily basis and this
engagement was to be effective from 01.09.2005.
The Office of the opposite party No.3 in Letter
No.1490, dated 26.09.2007 stated that Sri Patra
was temporarily engaged as Attendant in the
Computer Science (Self-Financing) Department with
effect from 01.09.2007 to 31.08.2008 with
remuneration of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) only
per day.”
iii. The Principal of the College, as and when required,
directed the petitioner to work with different
Departments by assigning various types of works,
which fact is corroborated by Office Order No.863,
dated 06.05.2010 of the Principal, SWAC.
iv. Letter vide Memo No.1217, dated 06.07.2010,
issued by the Principal-opposite party No.3
addressed to the Director, Higher Education,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar reflects the names of
Petitioner along with Sri Anama Charan Nayak
(both receiving payments of remuneration by
utilising “Self-Finance (Computer Science and
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 20 of 112

Information Technology) and College Development
Fund”) and clarifies that:
“Apart from their normal work at the concerned
Departments and College gates and inside the
campus, they also help in conducting admission
work, College/University/Council and Public
Examinations, works in the hostels and other works
assigned to them from time to time. Their works
have been satisfactory and they help in the smooth
functioning of the administration of the College.”

v. Office Order vide Memo No.1714, dated 31.08.2010
issued by the Principal, SWAC specifies as follows:
Sri Santosh Kumar Patra, engaged as Lab
“
Attendant in the Department of Computer
Science (Self-Finance) is hereby engaged on
contractual basis in the same Department
keeping his present monthly remuneration intact in
the same Department with immediate effect vide
Finance Department Letter No.40545, (255)/CS-1(P)-
11/08 Dated 29.08.2009 and ORSP Rules, 2008
considering his length of engagement in the
same Department, his overall good
performance in the works assigned to him from
time to time in the Department and in the
College Office and his qualification .
He will enjoy all the facilities of a contractual
employee hereafter. He will also be engaged in the
holidays for all types of work in the College as and
when required. He will draw his monthly
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 21 of 112

remuneration as usual from the Funds of Computer
Science Department.”
vi. Though vague plea at paragraph 7 of the counter
affidavit filed by the opposite party No.3 has been
taken putting the blame on the Laboratory
Attendant, as if he is the custodian of the records
of the College, that “There is no document to
substantiate the claim that the appointment was
made with effect from 01.12.2000 as has been
claimed in the writ petition” , the Commissioner-
cum- Secretary, Department of Higher Education in
his Order dated 09.08.2019 clarifies that
“Sri
Santosh Kumar Patra was engaged as a temporary
worker by the Principal, Shailabala Women‟s
College, Kataka in the year 2000 with intermittent
break of engagements ... It transpires from the Office
Order dated 31.08.2010 of Principal, Shailabala
Women‟s Autonomous College, Kataka that
considering his length of engagement, his overall
good performance in the work assigned to him and
his qualification, he was engaged as Laboratory
.
Attendant by the Principal. ...”

vii. Even assuming the date of engagement of the
petitioner is in the year 2005 [ vide Letter No.2310,
dated 05.09.2005
depicts the petitioner’s
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 22 of 112

engagement as peon/Laboratory Attendant in the
Computer Science Department], as on the date of
rejection of representation, i.e., 09.08.2019, he
completed 14 years of service. It remains
undisputed that the petitioner has been continuing
in service till date without any protection of interim
order of Court, and as such, he has completed
more than 21 years of service in the College as
peon/Laboratory Attendant.
6.1. Given these facts, a glance at the Order dated
09.08.2019 of the Commissioner- cum- Secretary, Higher
Education Department reveals a major flaw in rejecting
the representation of the petitioner for consideration of
regularisation in service. The said authority ignored key
facts that unequivocally lead to justify the claim of the
petitioner through documents available on record.

7. From the rival claims it falls for consideration whether
the decision making process of the Commissioner- cum-
Secretary, Higher Education Department suffers from
infirmity and perversity in arriving at the conclusion vide
Order dated 09.08.2019 (Annexure-11) so as to warrant
invoking power of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Minute scrutiny of the Order dated
09.08.2019 (Annexure-11) indicates the following
reasons for arriving at the decision to reject the
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 23 of 112

representation of the petitioner seeking regularisation in
service:
i. The eligibility conditions stipulated in General
Administration Department Resolution No.26108/
Gen., dated 17.09.2013 are not satisfied.
ii. Anama Charan Nayak, who was engaged in the
College prior to 12.04.1993, in terms of Finance
Department Resolution No.22764/F., dated
15.05.1997 his service was regularised; whereas
the case of the petitioner cannot be treated to be
identically placed.
8. The first point for consideration is whether the claim of
the petitioner falls within the scope of General
Administration Department Notification No.26108/Gen,
dated 17.09.2013 and the reason ascribed by the
Commissioner- cum- Secretary to Government can
withstand judicial scrutiny.
8.1. At the outset the following conceptual understanding of
regularisation in service as stated in State of Gujarat Vrs.
Karshanbhai K. Rabari, (2006) Supp.3 SCR 660, does
require to be borne in mind:
“We find that the case of the parties has to be considered
in the light of what has been stated by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 24 of 112

Umadevi‟s case (2006) 4 SCC 1. It has been inter alia
observed by the Constitution Bench as follows:
„Even at the threshold, it is necessary to keep in mind the
distinction between regularization and conferment of
permanence in service jurisprudence. In State of Mysore
Vrs. S.V. Narayanappa, AIR 1967 SC 1071 this Court
stated that it was a mis-conception to consider that
regularization meant permanence. In R.N. Nanjundappa
Vrs. T. Thimmiah and Anr., (1972) 1 SCC 409, this Court
dealt with an argument that regularization would mean
conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment.
This Court stated:
„Counsel on behalf of the respondent contended that
regularization would mean conferring the quality of
permanence on the appointment, whereas counsel on
behalf of the State contended that regularization did not
mean permanence but that it was a case of regularization
of the rules under Article 309. Both the contentions are
fallacious. If the appointment itself is in infraction of
the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of
the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized.
Ratification or regularization is possible of an act
which is within the power and province of the
authority, but there has been some non-compliance
with procedure or manner which does not go to the
root of the appointment. Regularization cannot be
said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such
a proposition would be to introduce a new head of
appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the
effect of setting at naught the rules.
‟
In B.N. Nagarajan and Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka and
Ors., (1979) 4 SCC 507 this court clearly held that the
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 25 of 112

words „regular” or „regularization‟ do not connote
permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an
idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They are
terms calculated to condone any procedural
irregularities and are meant to cure only such
defects as are attributable to methodology followed
in making the appointments. This court emphasized
that when rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India are in force, no regularization is
permissible in exercise of the executive powers of the
Government under Article 162 of the Constitution in
contravention of the rules. These decisions and the
principles recognized therein have not been dissented to
by this Court and on principle, we see no reason not to
accept the proposition as enunciated in the above
decisions. We have, therefore, to keep this distinction in
mind and proceed on the basis that only something that is
irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements
in the process of selection which does not go to the root of
the process, can be regularized and that it alone can be
regularized and granting permanence of employment is a
totally different concept and cannot be equated with
regularization. One aspect arises. Obviously, the State is
also controlled by economic considerations and financial
implications of any public employment. The viability of the
department or the instrumentality or of the project is also
of equal concern for the State. The State works out the
scheme taking into consideration the financial
implications and the economic aspects. Can the court
impose on the State a financial burden of this nature by
insisting on regularization or permanence in employment,
when those employed temporarily are not needed
permanently or regularly? As an example, we can
envisage a direction to give permanent employment to all
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 26 of 112

those who are being temporarily or casually employed in
a public sector undertaking. The burden may become so
heavy by such a direction that the undertaking itself may
collapse under its own weight. It is not as if this had not
happened. So, the court ought not to impose a financial
burden on the State by such directions, as such directions
may turn counter-productive.
In Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P.
Vrs. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.), (1992) 4 SCC 33, this
Court held that since the appointment was on purely
contractual and ad hoc basis on consolidated pay for a
fixed period and terminable without notice, when the
appointment came to an end by efflux of time, the
appointee had no right to continue in the post and to claim
regularization in service in the absence of any rule
providing for regularization after the period of service. A
limited relief of directing that the appointee be permitted
on sympathetic consideration to be continued in service till
the end of the concerned calendar year was issued. This
Court noticed that when the appointment was
purely on ad hoc and contractual basis for a limited
period, on the expiry of the period, the right to
remain in the post came to an end. This Court stated
that the view they were taking was the only view possible
and set aside the judgment of the High Court which had
given relief to the appointee. This Court also quoted with
approval the observations of this Court in Teri Oat Estates
(P) Ltd. Vrs. U. T., Chandigarh, (2004) 2 SCC 130 to the
effect:
“We have no doubt in our mind that sympathy or
sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an
order in relation whereto the appellants miserably fail to
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 27 of 112

establish a legal right. It is further trite that despite an
extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court
ordinarily would not pass an order which would be in
contravention of a statutory provision.‟
This decision kept in mind the distinction between
„regularization‟ and „permanency‟ and laid down that
regularization is not and cannot be the mode of
recruitment by any State. It also held that regularization
cannot give permanence to an employee whose services
are ad hoc in nature.”
8.2. This Court now ventures to examine whether the case at
hand satisfies the conditions specified in the General
Administration Department Resolution No.26108/Gen,
dated 17.09.2013. In other words, the basic ground as is
apparent from the impugned Order dated 09.08.2019
(Annexure-11) seems to be that the eligibility criteria
specified in General Administration Department
2
Notification No.26108/Gen., dated 17.09.2013 read
3
with No.1066/Gen, dated 16.01.2014 were not satisfied
for the purpose of consideration of regularization of
contractual appointments on completion of six years of
satisfactory contractual service. For ready reference both
the Resolutions are reproduced hereunder:

2
General Administration Department Resolution No.26108-GAD-SC-RULES-
0009-2013/Gen., dated 17.09.2013 is published in Odisha Gazette
Extraordinary No.1769, dated 18.09.2013.
3
General Administration Department No. 1066-GAD-SC-RULES-0009/2013/
Gen., 16.01.2014 is published in Odisha Gazette Extraordinary No.206, dated
24.01.2014.
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 28 of 112

“GAD-SC-RULES-0009-2013—26108/Gen
Government of Odisha
General Administration Department
*
RESOLUTION
Bhubaneswar dated the 17th September, 2013.
SUB: Regular appointment of existing contractual Group C
and Group D employees who are not holding any
post in contravention of any statutory Recruitment
Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India or any executive instruction in
absence of such rules.
The policy regarding regular appointment of following
categories of contractual Group „C‟ and Group „D‟
employees appointed under the State Government was
under active consideration of Government for some time
past. Contractual appointments/engagements made
against contractual posts created with the concurrence of
Finance Department on abolition of the corresponding
regular posts or contractual appointments/engagements
made against contractual posts created with the
concurrence of Finance Department without abolition of
any corresponding regular post in case of new offices or
for strengthening of the existing offices/services, following
the recruitment procedure prescribed for the
corresponding regular posts and the principle of
reservation of Posts and services for different categories
of persons decided by the state Government from time to
time.
Government after careful consideration and in
supersession of the Resolutions/Orders/Instructions
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 29 of 112

issued by different Departments of Government to that
effect; except as respects things done or omitted to be
done before such supersession, have been pleased to
decide as follows:
1.
Regular Appointment.—
(1) A gradation list of such contractual employees shall
be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis
of their date of appointment. In case, the dates of
appointment of two or more employees are the same
their inter-se position may be decided on the basis of
their date of birth, taking the elder as senior.
(2) Regular appointment of the above categories of
contractual employees shall be made on the date of
completion of six years of service or from the date of
publication of this Resolution, whichever is later, in
the order in which their names appear in the
gradation list prepared under para 1. The period of
six years shall be counted from the date of
contractual appointment prior to publication of this
Resolution.
(3) Consequent upon regular appointment under the
contractual post, if any, shall get re-converted to
regular sanctioned post.
(4) In case the person concerned has crossed the upper
age limit for entry into Government service on the
date of contractual appointment for the
corresponding regular post, the appointing authority
shall allow relaxation of upper age limit.
2. Conditions of Service on Regular Appointment.—
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 30 of 112

(1) Regular Appointments: On the date of satisfactory
completion of six years of contractual service or from
the date of publication of this Resolution, whichever
is later, they shall be deemed to have been regularly
appointed. A formal order of regular appointment
shall be issued by the appointing authority.
(2) Pay and other benefits: On regular appointment they
shall be entitled to draw the time scale of pay plus
Grade Pay with DA and other allowances as
admissible in the corresponding pay band.
(3) Other conditions of service:
(a) The other conditions of service shall be such as
has been provided in the relevant recruitment
rules.
(b) The conditions of service in regard to matters
not covered by this Resolution shall be the
same as are or as may from time to time be
prescribed by the State Government.
3.
Interpretation.—
If any question arises relating to the interpretation of
this Resolution, it shall be referred to the State
Government whose decision thereon shall be final.
4. This has been concurred in by Finance Department
and Law Department vide their UOR No.2909-ACSF,
Dated 09.07.2013 and UOR No.1687/L., Dated
19.07.2013 respectively.
ORDER: Ordered that the Resolution be published in the
extraordinary issue of the Odisha Gazette.
Ordered also that copies of the Resolution be
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 31 of 112

forwarded to all Departments of Government /
all Heads of Departments/all Collectors /
Registrar, Odisha High Court / Registrar,
Odisha Administrative Tribunal Special
Secretary, Odisha Public Service
Commission/Secretary, Odisha Staff Selection
Commission/Secretary, Odisha Sub-ordinate
Staff Selection Commission, Bhubaneswar.
By Order of the Governor
NITEN CHANDRA
Special Secretary

to Government”
*
[No. 1066-GAD-SC-RULES-0009/2013/Gen.]
General Administration Department
RESOLUTION
The 16th January, 2014
Sub: Regular Appointment of existing Contractual Group C
and Group-D employees who are not holding any
post in contravention of any statutory Recruitment
Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India or any executive instruction in
absence of such rules.

1. As per General Administration Department
th
Resolution No. 26108/Gen., Dated the 17
September, 2013, the following are the mandatory
eligibility conditionalities for regularlzation of
contractual appointees/engagements:
(i) Contractual appointments/engagements must
have been made against contractual posts
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 32 of 112

created with the concurrence of Finance
Department on abolition of the corresponding
regular posts or contractual posts created with
the concurrence of Finance Department without
abolition of any corresponding regular post in
case of new offices or for strengthening of the
existing offices/services,
(ii) Such Contractual appointments/engagements
must have been made following the recruitment
procedure prescribed for the corresponding
regular posts, and
(iii) Principle of reservation of Posts must have
been followed in case of such Contractual
appointments/engagements. In other words, no
contractual appointee shall be eligible for
regular appointment as per the aforesaid
Resolution unless the mandatory eligibility
conditionalities described above are fulfilled.
2. A part from the contractual employees fulfilling the
conditionalities elucidated in Para. 1 above, there
are other categories of contractual employees
engaged with or without creation of posts with the
concurrence of Finance Department, without
following the relevant recruitment and reservation
Rules. There are also contractual employees
engaged on out sourcing basis through service
providing agencies. These contractual employees are
not eligible for regularization as per the aforesaid
Resolution.
3. In order to prevent misuse of the aforesaid
Resolution, it is felt necessary to put appropriate
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 33 of 112

mechanism in place to ensure that the necessary
conditionalities as mentioned in Para. 1 are met.
4. Government, therefore, after careful consideration
have been pleased to decide in the following
manner.
(a) Proposal for regularization of contractual
appointees/engagements as per the aforesaid
Resolution shall be considered and approved
by a High Power Committee to be constituted
under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of the
relevant Department in which the concerned
Head of Department and FA/AFA of the
Department shall be Members.
(b) In case the matter pertains to Administrative
Department, then the High Power Committee
shall be constituted under the Chairmanship of
the Secretary of the Department with Special
Secretary/Additional Secretary in-charge of the
office establishment and FA/AFA of the
Department as Members.
(c) While considering the cases of regularization,
High Power Committee shall at the outset
ensure that the concerned appointments fulfil
the mandatory eligibility conditionalities as
elucidated in Para. 1 above and thereafter
consider the case on the basis of the
stipulations contained under the heading
„Regular Appointments‟ of the General
Administration Department Resolution
No.26108/Gen, Dated the 17th September,
2013.
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 34 of 112

5. This Resolution has been issued with the advice of
Finance Department communicated to General
Administration Department vide their DOR No.5660-
ACSF, dated the 19th December, 2013.
Order: Ordered that the Resolution be published In the
Extraordinary Issue of the Odisha Gazette.
Ordered also that copies of the Resolution be
forwarded to all departments of Government/
all Heads of Departments/all Collectors/
Registrar, Odisha High Court/Registrar,
Odisha Administrative Tribunal/Special
Secretary, Odisha Public Service
Commission/Secretary. Odisha Staff Selection
Commission/Secretary, Odisha Sub-ordinate
Staff Selection Commission. Bhubaneswar.
By Order of the Governor
NITEN CHANDRA
Special Secretary

to Government”
8.3. From the aforesaid Resolutions, it is crystal clear that in
order to consider regularization of contractual
appointees/engagees, besides such contractual posts are
created with the concurrence of the Finance
Department, recruitment procedure prescribed for the
corresponding regular posts and principles of reservation
of posts were required to be followed.
8.4. In the present case, no dispute could dwell on the fact
that the posts were created with sanction of the
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 35 of 112

Government and the Finance Department concurred for
the same. In the Letter No.32631— HE-FE-III-MISC-
166/2013/HE, dated 28.12.2013 of Additional Secretary
to Government addressed to the Director, Higher
Education the details of posts (category-wise) in each of
the Colleges to be filled up has been given. Annexure-G
appended therewith is a list showing sanction and
vacancy position so far as it related to “Laboratory
Attendant”. Relevant portion of the said letter dated
28.12.2013 is extracted hereunder:
“No.HE-FE-III-MISC-166/2013.32631/HE.,
th
dated the 28 December, 2013
From:
Shri D.P. Behera, IAS,
Additional Secretary to Government.
To
The Director Higher Education, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar.
Sub.: Filling up of non-teaching vacant posts in Govt.
Colleges in the State.
Sir,
I am directed to invite a reference to your Letter
No.30487 dated 25.06.2013 on the subject cited
above and to say that Finance Department have
concurred in the proposal for filling up the following
274 number of base level non-teaching vacant posts
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 36 of 112

in Government Colleges by direct recruitment on
contractual basis.
Sl.
No.
Category of
the post
No. of post
to be
filled up
Remarks
1. Junior Clerk 59 By direct recruitment on
contractual basis
2. Laboratory
Assistant-cum-
Store Keeper
140 By direct recruitment on
contractual basis
3. Laboratory
Attendant
44 By direct recruitment on
contractual basis
4. Junior Librarian 7 By direct recruitment on
contractual basis
5. Library
Attendant
24 By direct recruitment on
contractual basis
Total:
274 Posts

The details of the posts (Category-wise) in which
colleges to be filled up is given in the statements
enclosed (Annexure-„C‟ to „G‟).
The above 274 numbers of different categories of
posts as in the statements enclosed shall be filled up
on contractual basis following the relevant
recruitment rules and provision of ORV Act & Rule.
The emoluments and service conditions shall be
determined as per the new recruitment rules issued
vide General Administration Department Notification
No.32010/Gen., dated 12.11.2013 (copy enclosed).
As regards, filling up of vacant posts of Assistant
Librarian (23) and Senior Librarian (5) out of 302
posts as agreed to by Finance Department it is
stated that since the above posts are promotional
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 37 of 112

posts, such posts shall be filled up as per the
decision taken in the meeting held on 27.07.2013
under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department. The copy of the
minutes of the aforesaid meeting is enclosed
herewith for reference. So the following posts of
Librarian cadre may be filled up by way of
promotion. The colleges in which the posts of Senior
Librarian and Assistant Librarian to be filled up by
way of promotion has been indicated in the
statements enclosed (Annexure-„A‟ & „B‟).
Sl.
No.
Name of the posts to be filled
up by way of promotion from
the feeder posts as indicated
in col.4.
Number of
posts to be
filled up
Name of the
feeder posts
1 2 3 4
1. Assistant Librarian 23 Junior
Librarian
2. Senior Librarian 05 Librarian
Total:28
posts

As regards filling up of the base level vacant posts of
P.E.T. and Group-D posts in Government Colleges it
is stated that Finance Department have not
considered the same proposal.
It is therefore requested that necessary steps may
kindly be taken early for filling up of aforesaid non-
teaching vacant posts as shown in statements
enclosed observing all formalities as indicated
above.
*
Annexure-G
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 38 of 112

Laboratory Attendant
Sl.
No.
District
Name
Name of College Sanctioned
post
Man in
position
No. of vacancies
allowed to be
filled up
20 Cuttack Shailabala
Women‟s (Degree)
College, Cuttack
31 12 3
8.5. The Principal, SWAC signed a document on 11.02.2015
which reveals the following particulars:
Name of the College :
“1. Shailabala Women‟s College, Kataka
2. Whether accredited
by, and if so, Grade : NAAC Grade A: expired 2010
3. Vacancy position of
Non-Teaching staff:
Sl.
No.
Name of the post No. of
sanctioned
post
Man in
position
Vacancy Remarks
13 Laboratory Attendant 34 10 24
32 Laboratory Assistant 04 NIL 04
8.6. The petitioner was provided with an information under
the Right to Information Act, 2005 which stands as
follows as on 29.11.2025:
Sl.
No.
Name of the post Sanctioned
strength
Men in
position
No. of
vacancy
Date of
vacancy
2 Laboratory Attendant 31 09 22
8.7. The above facts and figures would reveal that the
sanctioned strength of Laboratory Attendant is 31/34
and vacancy position is 24/22. Therefore, one of the
conditions that the contractual appointment/
engagement must have been made against contractual
posts created with the concurrence of Finance
Department on abolition of the corresponding regular
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 39 of 112

posts or contractual posts created with concurrence of
Finance Department without abolition of any
corresponding regular post in case of new offices or for
strengthening of the existing offices/services as
mechanically reflected in the impugned Order dated
09.08.2019 by the Commissioner- cum- Secretary has no
rational basis. The said authority has not given any
reason demonstrating the factual position as to why the
present petitioner does not fit into such condition.
8.8. Second aspect which got thrashed out by the
Commissioner- cum- Secretary in his Order dated
09.08.2019 is that the contractual appointment/
engagement must have been made following the
recruitment procedure prescribed for the corresponding
regular post. In this respect also the Commissioner- cum-
Secretary has not put forth any material particular to
indicate that service Rules for engagement/ appointment
of Laboratory Attendant was existing at the relevant
point of time. There is no discussion made by the
authority with reference to any material on record. This
Court finds from the papers enclosed with the writ
petition and counter affidavits sufficient material to
demonstrate that against vacant sanctioned post the
petitioner has been entrusted to perform his duty in
different Departments of the College at the instruction of
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 40 of 112

the Principal. In course of hearing of the present matter,
the learned Additional Government Advocate has not
brought to notice of this Court any such Rules relating
to appointment of Laboratory Attendant. On the
contrary, careful scrutiny of Letter No.2310, dated
05.09.2005 of the opposite party No.3-Principal, SWAC
copy of which is enclosed with the counter affidavit
clearly reveals that the remuneration has been fixed with
respect to his engagement in the College was in
consideration of application submitted by the petitioner.
The aspect of long period of engagement and
consideration of application presuppose that the
engagement was made following process as was
prevalent at the relevant period of time and against
sanctioned post. The fact of certain process for
engagement was undertaken can be discerned from the
following text contained in Letter No.696, dated
06.03.2018 issued by the Principal, SWAC addressed to
the Director, Higher Education, copy of which is
enclosed as Annexure-J/3 to the counter affidavit of the
opposite party No.3:
“Point No.3: As per records, Sri Santosh Kumar Patra was
not selected from the sponsored names by the local
employment exchange. Further, the engagement was not
made against any regular vacant post of the Department
and the selection process was made at the College
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 41 of 112

level for Computer Science (Self-Finance)
Department only. ”
8.9. For the manner of selection process adopted by the
employer/appointing authority, no role can be attributed
to the petitioner; rather the Principal in the Letters/
Office Orders made it expedient for the petitioner to
discharge duties in different Departments of the College.
8.10. The matter could be looked into on different angle. The
College Authorities as also the Government were well
aware of the recruitment procedure, yet they, as
employers, have with eyes open allowed the petitioner to
continue to discharge duty by entrusting him with very
many types of works, besides the work of Laboratory
Attendant. Office Orders entrusting him work stand
testimony to the fact that the petitioner was assigned
with key positions. He was assigned with the job to
assist smooth conduct of examinations also. There is no
dispute about unblemished service rendered by the
petitioner, which fact is corroborated by the tenor of
Office Order vide Memo No.1714, dated 31.08.2010
issued by the Principal, SWAC. It is also undeniable that
the authorities at the College have been utilising his
services throughout these years, since 2005 (if not,
2000) till date without any complaint from any quarter.
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 42 of 112

8.11. The contention of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 by way
of counter affidavit that the Odisha Laboratory
Attendant Service, Group-C (Method of Recruitment and
4
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 is attracted in the
present case is fallacious. In the first place such aspect
was not the reason for denial of regularisation in the
Order dated 09.08.2019 of the Commissioner- cum-
Secretary. Fresh reason cannot countenance the
sustainability of the order impugned. In this regard
following principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Mohinder Singh Gill Vrs. The Chief
Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 = (1978) 3 SCR
272 is significant:
“The second equally relevant matter is that when a
statutory functionary makes an order based on certain
grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons
in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an
order bad in the beginning may, by the time it
comes to court on account of a challenge, get
validated by additional grounds later brought out.
We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose
J. in Gordhandas Bhanji, (1952) 1 SCR 135 = AIR 1952
SC 16:

4
In order to regulate the method of recruitment and conditions of service of teh
persons appointed to the Laboratory Attendant Service, the Odisha Laboratory
Attendant Service, Group-C (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 2012 are framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India and came into force with effect from 31.08.2012 being
published in the Odisha Gazette Extraordinary No.1722, dated 31.08.2012.
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 43 of 112

„Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory
authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations
subsequently given by the officer making the order of
what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he
intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities
are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect
the actings and conduct of those to whom they are
addressed and must be construed objectively with
reference to the language used in the order itself.‟
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow
older:
A Caveat.”

8.12. As is admitted that by the Principal, SWAC at paragraph
7 of the counter affidavit that “the Letter No.2310, dated
05.09.2005 was issued to the petitioner” engaging him
“as a peon in the Computer Science Department”, this
presupposes that the College Authorities judged the
eligibility and entitlement of the petitioner. Furthermore,
Rule 1(2) of the Odisha Laboratory Attendant Service,
Group-C (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 2012 makes it abundantly clear that said
Rules would come into force with effect from 31.08.2012,
i.e., the date of publication of said Rules in the Odisha
Gazette Extraordinary. Since the petitioner was engaged
prior to introduction of said Rules, 2012 and continued
to be engaged by entrusting him with very many sorts of
jobs in different Departments of the College in addition
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 44 of 112

to his usual engagement as Laboratory Attendant, the
approach of the opposite party No.1 is misconceived.
Though said Rules are not applicable to the present
case, even if eligibility criteria as envisaged in Rule 5 of
the Odisha Laboratory Attendant Service, Group-C
(Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 2012 are taken into consideration, the petitioner
appears to be in possession of such qualifications.
8.13. Be that as it may, it is clarified that the Odisha
Laboratory Attendant Service, Group-C (Method of
Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012
having been published in the Odisha Gazette,
Extraordinary No.1722, dated 31.08.2012, and came
into force on the said date of publication by virtue of
Rule 1(2) thereof, and the Commissioner- cum- Secretary
having not denied regularisation stemming on said
Rules, the insistence of the opposite party No.1 in its
counter affidavit is dispelled.
8.14. Nevertheless, the reason at paragraph 4 of the Order
dated 09.08.2019 of the Commissioner- cum- Secretary in
absence of placing any substantive factual foundation,
simply reiterating the conditions stipulated in General
Administration Resolution No.26108-GAD-SC-RULES-
0009-2013/Gen., dated 17.09.2013 read with No.1066-
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 45 of 112

GAD-SC-RULES-0009/2013/Gen., dated 16.01.2014
would not suffice for rejecting claim for regularisation.
8.15. Further reason by said Authority that the principles of
reservation of posts must have to be followed in case of
contractual appointments/engagements is without any
plausible perception. The objection as to adherence to
the principles contained in the Odisha Reservation of
Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 (for brevity, “the ORV
it is the College Authority/employer, the
Act”),
Appointing Authority, is required to be vigilant while
engaging such employee on contractual basis and the
Authority is responsible for obtaining necessary
sanction. After exploiting the employee for a long period
(here it is more than 21 years, taking the year 2005 as
initial engagement) raising such a plea on the basis of
General Administration Resolution No.26108-GAD-SC-
RULES-0009-2013/Gen., dated 17.09.2013 read with
No.1066-GAD-SC-RULES-0009/2013/Gen., dated
16.01.2014 is not only unfair, illogical and arbitrary, but
also such action on the part of the authority/
Government is liable to be deprecated. At the time of
engagement of the petitioner the employer was required
to keep in mind the necessity of compliance of such
reservation policy. After engaging the petitioner in the
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 46 of 112

post of Laboratory Attendant on contractual basis and
entrusting him very many jobs including examination
duty, which is stated to have been renewed from time to
time since his engagement till date, when the
regularization of service fell for consideration, the College
Authority/Government cannot be allowed to shun
responsibility by saying that at the relevant point of
engagement these criteria were not followed.
8.16. Nonetheless, these criteria stipulated in the aforesaid
Resolutions have come to be published much after the
engagement of the petitioner. This apart,
notwithstanding such Resolutions having come to exist
in the years 2013 and 2014, till date the petitioner has
been given extensions and there is no objection as to
discharge of duties. It is manifest from the data provided
by the Principal, SWAC in the counter affidavit referred
to above that the petitioner has completed more than six
years of satisfactory service and by now more than 21
years without any protection of interim order of any
Court in his favour.
8.17. The petitioner cannot be kept on the tenterhooks of
employment for years together, by brushing aside and
discarding his hopes and expectations for indefinite
future with unresponsive indifference. This is nothing
but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 47 of 112

him the benefits of regularisation and by placing the
Sword of Damocles over his head.
8.18. A reference to Rupesh R. Gaonkar Vrs. State of Goa,
(2026) 8 SCR 431 may throw light on the plight of such
contractual employees who are made to render service
without regularisation in service. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India made following observation:
“26. It requires to be emphasised that the appellants are
not persons possessing rare or highly specialised
skills who might, without undue difficulty, seek and
obtain alternative avenues of livelihood, or who
could realistically be expected to compete afresh, at
this stage of their working lives, in an open and
general selection. They are workers drawn
predominantly from the unskilled, semi-skilled and
skilled categories, engaged on a contractual basis by
the State‟s own instrumentality, who have rendered
long and continuous service, several of them for well
over a decade and a half, and some for periods
extending over decades. To deny regularisation
to such workers, after having taken the benefit
of their labour for so long, is itself
symptomatic of the very exploitation that the
Society was constituted to prevent, and cannot
be countenanced by a constitutional court.
” *
8.19. The anxious consideration shown by the Madras High
Court in N. Karunanidhi Vrs. Union of India, W.P. No.
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 48 of 112

12887 of 2016, vide Judgment dated 22.04.2022 with
respect to exploitation of service may be relevant in the
present context. The following benevolent observation
has been made by said Court in favour of employees,
whose services have been utilized by the Government for
a long time:
“18. If the Courts cannot give direction for their
regularisation of service, in the constrained legal
scenario what other remedies that are available to
these unfortunate employees, who have been
engaged in service for public purpose, without
having any definite future to hold on? These
petitioners cannot be kept on the tenterhooks of
their employment for years together, by brushing
aside and discarding their concerned yearning for a
definite future, with unresponsive indifference.
19. A welfare State grounded on constitutional values,
cannot come up with apathetic and callous stand
that despite continued employment of these
petitioners for years together, no semblance of right
is available to them. Such stand by the State is
opposed to constitutional values as enshrined
in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The
Courts of course have held that equal opportunity
must be provided in public employment and entry
through back door should be discountenanced.
When Article 21, being violated by the State, action
towards its servants, the consideration of the
Government must primarily be focussed on
alleviating legitimate grievances of its employees.
Even assuming that the recruitment of these writ
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 49 of 112

petitioners had not been fully in consonance with the
procedure for appointment in Government services,
the fact remained that these persons have been
consciously appointed by the Government for
implementing public projects and the work has been
extracted from them continuously for several years.
It is therefore, not open to the Government
after a period of time to turn around and
contend that these writ petitioners have no
right at all to seek any kind of guarantee for
their future .
20. In the opinion of this Court, continued employment
for several years, even on a projects meant to serve
the State as a whole, certain rights would definitely
accrue to them, atleast to the extent of making a
claim for formulation of a scheme/towards their
absorption. This Court is quite conscious of the fact
that the Government has been benevolent and had
come up with several schemes in the past and
directed regularisation of services of thousands of
employees over a period of time. Such benevolence
ought to permeate to the lowest levels to take within
its sweep the desperate cry of the petitioners as
well. As in the sublime words of the father of nation,
Mahatma Gandhi, „A nation‟s greatness is measured
by how it treats its weakest members‟. Merely
because these writ petitioners have been employed
in the projects, the policy makers may not shut their
mind and close their eyes to their precarious plight
having to serve public purpose but left in the lurch
and unprotected, at the end of the day.”
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 50 of 112

8.20. It is fact admitted by the opposite parties that against
thirty-four sanctioned post of Laboratory Attendant only
ten posts were filled up leaving twenty-four posts vacant
as on 11.02.2015 and as on 29.11.2025 twenty-two
posts were lying vacant. The engagement of the
petitioner has been admitted to have been made on
consideration of his application. In view of State of
Jammu and Kashmir Vrs. District Bar Association,
Bandipora, (2017) 3 SCC 410 ; and Amarendra Kumar
Mohapatra Vrs. State of Odisha, (2014) 4 SCC 583 = AIR
2014 SC 1716 wherein it has been clearly laid down that
in order to ascertain whether an appointment is
irregular or illegal, the Court would have to enquire as to
whether the appointment process adopted was tainted
by the vice of non-adherence to an essential prerequisite
or is liable to be faulted on account of the lack of a fair
process of recruitment. It has already been noticed in
Umadevi‟s case, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , which was further
explained in State of Karnataka Vrs. M.L. Kesari, (2010)
9 SCC 247, that the “regularisation” in service can be
permissible if the following conditions are fulfilled:
i. The employee concerned should have worked for 10
years or more in duly sanctioned post without the
benefit or protection of the interim order of any
Court or Tribunal.
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 51 of 112

ii. In other words, the State Government or its
instrumentality should have employed the
employee and continued him in service voluntarily
and continuously for more than ten years.

8.21. It is manifest from record that by now the petitioner has
completed more than 10 years of service as per Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 [although the Government has
accepted six years of satisfactory service for
regularization in terms of Resolution dated 17.09.2013
read with Resolution dated 16.01.2014] and the College
Authorities with the knowledge of the Government in
Higher Education Department employed the petitioner
and extended his terms in service voluntarily and
continuously for more than ten years.
8.22. In view of discussions made supra as regards legal
position, the appointment/engagement of the petitioner
should not be treated to be illegal, even if it may sound
irregular. It is trite that where the appointments are not
made or continued against sanctioned posts or where
the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed
minimum qualifications, the appointments will be
considered to be illegal. But in the instant case, as there
is no complaint with respect to possession of the
prescribed qualifications and the petitioner has been
working in the presence of available vacant sanctioned
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 52 of 112

posts, and has been engaged on consideration of
application in this regard, such engagement/
appointment could neither be said to be illegal nor
irregular.

8.23. Noteworthy to refer to the Order dated 06.12.2021
passed by this Court in W.A. No.231 of 2016 [Vice
Chairman, State Council for Technical Education &
Vocational Training, Odisha] and batch, wherein it has
been observed as follows:
“In each of these appeals, the respondent has worked as
contractual watchman for over ten years. It is also stated
in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition in
paragraph 13 by the present appellants that there were in
fact five vacancies in sanctioned posts of watchman. The
only distinction sought to be made is that for benefiting by
the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs.
Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, their appointments had to be
merely „irregular‟ and not „illegal‟. The fact remains that
the respondents have been working continuously as
watchmen. It is not the case of the appellant that they are
not qualified to be employed as watchman. Given the fact
that the respondents have worked as watchmen on
contract basis for over ten years, it is obvious that the
appellant requires their services. In the circumstances,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order of the learned Single Judge requiring the appellants
to consider the cases of the respondents for
regularization. The appeals are dismissed.”
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 53 of 112

8.24. Following observation in Order dated 10.05.2018 of this
Court in State of Odisha Vrs. Jatin Kumar Das, W.P.(C)
6661 of 2018 [S.L.P.(C) No.18642 of 2018 against said
Order got dismissed by the Supreme Court on
06.08.2018] is noteworthy:
“However, while parting with the order, we may note that
whatever may be the mode of engagement/appointment,
there is concurrence of the Finance Department and the
employees in question were engaged in different
Departments of the Government and rendered their
services uninterruptedly. Besides that, mode of
engagement adopted and selection process followed was
consciously adopted and law prevalent at the relevant
time for engagement of contractual employees was
scrupulously followed under the aegis of Government
functionaries. But, surprisingly, after utilizing their
services for more than a decade, when question of
bringing them under regular establishment arises,
they (employees) are pushed to a corner. Government
functionaries in a welfare State should refrain from
adopting hire and fire policy. The action taken
amounts to gambling with the career of the employees,
some of whom might have been overaged to compete for
employment.”

8.25. So long as the College Authority does not furnish any
material on record to show that the engagement on
consideration of application of the petitioner was
undertaken without administrative exigencies and the
process of consideration was tainted with the vice of
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 54 of 112

nepotism, bias or mala fides , there can be no gainsaying
that the petitioner is liable to be regularised.
8.26. Though the aspect of adherence to the provisions of the
ORV Act, 1975 has been referred to above, it may be
worthwhile to deal with said point by supplementing
with the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in this regard. The stance of the Commissioner- cum-
Secretary to Government of Odisha in Department of
Higher Education as reflected in his Order dated
09.08.2019 to refuse regularisation of service of the
petitioner is liable to be interfered with inasmuch as the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in such context has observed in
the Order dated 21.11.2022 passed in State of Odisha
5
Vrs. Laxman Kumar Prusty, S.L.P.(C) No.95 of 2019 as
follows:
“Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case and considering the fact that the respondents
herein/original applicants were continued since 2008
against the regular posts and completed six years of
contractual service, they were entitled to the benefit of
Resolution dated 17.09.2013. The submission made on
behalf of the respondents that at the relevant time
when they were appointed, the reservation was not
followed and, therefore, they are not entitled to

5
Special Leave Petition was preferred by the Government of Odisha challenging
final Judgment and Order dated 23.03.2018 in W.P.(C) No.22547 of 2017
passed by this Court.
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 55 of 112

regularisation is concerned, the petitioner/State
cannot be permitted to take such a stand after
continuing them on contractual basis for
approximately six years. No interference of this Court is
called for. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
8.27. In State of Odisha Vrs. Biswamitra Parida, W.A. No.822
of 2020, vide Order dated 10.02.2021 it has been
observed by this Court as follows:
“In view of the Resolution dated 17.09.2013, since the
respondents have already completed the required years of
continuous service/engagement and posts were created
pursuant to the direction of the learned Court, the
appellants-opposite parties should not have engaged the
respondents on contractual basis. Therefore, the
appellants opposite parties should regularize the service
of the respondents in accordance with the Resolution
dated 17.09.2013 of the General Administration
Department. Considering the above facts, it is not
disputed that similar questions on principles of ORV Act
which were not followed earlier, series of writ petitions
were disposed of which were confirmed by the Apex Court
in SLP No.18642 of 2018 dated 06.08.2018 in the case of
State of Odisha & Anr. Versus Jatin Kumar Das which
arises out of Original Application No.2172(C) of 2015 and
batch of cases. In the said Original Application, the
learned Tribunal has already dealt with the said issue
having not followed the Rules of the ORV Act at
paragraph-8 of the judgment dated 17.05.2017 and
Original Applications were disposed of by the Tribunal
wherein the following specific finding was given:
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 56 of 112

„the ORV Posts and Services Act, 1975 has no application
to the posts to be filled up through contract in terms of
Section-3(d) of the said Act. The respondents failed to
produce any paper indicating the amendment of Section
3(d) of ORV Act, 1975 so also they could not able to
produce the documents that there was any other statutory
and mandatory provision overriding section 3(d) referred
to above for application of the reservation principle while
issuing contractual engagement/ appointment in favour of
the applicants during the year 2005.‟
However, pursuant to the direction of this Court to take
instruction, learned Additional Government Advocate
submitted that the Resolution dated 17.09.2013 passed
by the General Administration Department for
regularization of the DLR, daily wages employees shall be
applicable in the case of present respondents. In view of
the above facts, all the writ petitions were disposed of
confirming the order of Tribunal and the said orders of the
writ petitions were confirmed by the apex Court in Special
Leave Petition on the same issue. Rightly the learned
Single Judge has directed the appellants-State authorities
to regularize services of the Respondents petitioner in
terms of the above facts and circumstances narrated in
the above paragraphs. Therefore, we are not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order dated 03.09.2020
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.22112
of 2020. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.”
Said matter was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
S.L.P.(C) No.6851 of 2021 [State of Odisha Vrs.
Biswamitra Parida] wherein the following Order was
passed on 30.06.2021:
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 57 of 112

“We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave
Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution.
2 The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly
dismissed.
3
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”

8.28. For another reason the ORV Act, 1975 has no
application to the present context; for that the State
Government has introduced amendment to Section 3
thereof by virtue of the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies
in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes) Amendment Ordinance, 2023
[published in Odisha Gazette, Extraordinary No.1996,
dated 19.08.2023], which has been given effect to “at
once”. Later said Ordinance has been promulgated as
the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and
Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes)
Amendment Act, 2023 [published in Odisha Gazette,
Extraordinary No.2543, dated 07.11.2023], which came
into force with effect from 19.08.2023. Sub-section (2) of
Section 3 as inserted by virtue of said amendment reads
as,
“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), reservation shall apply to appointment made or to be
made to all tenure posts or contractual posts or schematic
posts which are to be regularized against the sanctioned
posts.” No ambiguity can possibly be entertained. Upon
a cursory glance at said amendment— which specifies
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 58 of 112

the effective date as 19.08.2023 (prospective
amendment)— it is perceived that prior thereto the ORV
Act, 1975, had no application to contractual posts for
consideration of regularisation against the sanctioned
posts.
8.29. Noteworthy here to have reference to a decision of this
Court rendered in the case of Patitapaban Dutta Dash
and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, W.P.(C) No.
19951 of 2020, vide Judgment dated 09.09.2021,
wherein a learned Single Bench has made the following
observations:
“8. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Court comes
into picture only to ensure observance of
fundamental rights, and to ensure the rule of law
and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a
fair deal to its employees consistent with
requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution, and that the authority should not
exploit its employees nor should it seek to take
advantage of the helplessness and misery of either
the unemployed persons or the employees, as the
case may be. For this very reason, it is held that a
person should not be kept in contractual, temporary
or ad hoc status for a long period. Where a
contractual, temporary or ad hoc appointment
is continued for long, the Court presumes that
there is need of a regular post and accordingly
directs for regularization. While issuing direction
for regularization, the Court must first ascertain the
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 59 of 112

relevant fact, and must be cognizant of the several
situations and eventualities that may arise on
account of such direction. If for any reason, a
contractual, ad hoc or temporary employee is
continued for a fairly long spell, the
authorities must consider his case for
regularization, provided he is eligible and
qualified according to rules and his service
record is satisfactory and his appointment
does not run counter to the reservation policy
of the State. Even though a casual labourer is
continued for a fairly long spell, say two or three
years, a presumption may arise that there is regular
need for his service. In such a situation, it becomes
obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the
feasibility of his regularization. While doing so, the
authorities ought to adopt a positive approach
coupled with empathy for the person.”
Aforesaid Judgment rendered by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in Patitapaban Dutta Dash (supra)
[2021 SCC OnLine Ori 2534] got the seal of approval by
the Division Bench of this Court being carried in intra-
Court appeal, bearing W.A. No.777 of 2021, which came
to be disposed of vide Judgment dated 12.04.2023
6
reported at 2023 (I) ILR-CUT 906 . While directing the

6
The position of Patitapaban Dutta Dash Vrs State of Odisha & others, 2021 SCC
OnLine Ori 2534 is that, the judgment of learned Single Judge being confirmed
by Division Bench of this Court vide State of Odisha Vrs. Patitapaban Dutta
Dash, 2023 (I) ILR-CUT 906
, the matter was further carried before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India by the State of Odisha. Vide Order dated 12.11.2025
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition (Civil)
bearing No.5815 of 2024 (State of Odisha Vrs. Patitapaban Dutta Dash) along
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 60 of 112

State of Odisha to implement the direction of the Single
Judge “in letter and spirit”, this Court in the said intra-
Court appeal made it clear as follows:
“43. As regards the decision in Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 as
explained later in State of Karnataka Vrs. M.L.
7
Kesari, 2010 (II) OLR (SC) 982 = (2010) 9 SCC 247 ,
the Respondents can possibly seek the extension of
the benefit of the ratio of the aforementioned
decisions for two reasons. One, that the
Respondents were engaged against sanctioned
posts and two, they were engaged after qualifying in
a computer test. In M.L. Kesari (supra), the Supreme
Court explained:

„It is evident from the above that there is an
exception to the general principles against
„regularization‟ enunciated in Umadevi, if the
following conditions are fulfilled:

with other batch of matters tagged to SLP(C) No.17482 of 2023 (State of Odisha
Vrs. Bidyadhar Biswal and Others) .
7
In view of State of Jammu and Kashmir Vrs. District Bar Association, Bandipora,
MANU/SC/1566/2016 = (2017) 3 SCC 410; and Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra
Vrs. State of Odisha, (2014) 4 SCC 583 = AIR 2014 SC 1716 wherein it has been
clearly laid down that in order to ascertain whether an appointment is irregular
or illegal, the Court would have to enquire as to whether the appointment
process adopted was tainted by vice of non-adherence to an essential
prerequisite or is liable to be faulted on account of the lack of a fair process of
recruitment. It has already been noticed in ,
Umadevi‟s case, (2006) 4 SCC 1
which was further explained in State of Karnataka Vrs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9
SCC 247 , that the “regularisation” in service can be permissible if the following
conditions are fulfilled:

i. The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in
duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim
order of any Court or Tribunal.
ii. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have
employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and
continuously for more than ten years.
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 61 of 112

(i) The employee concerned should have worked
for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post
without the benefit or protection of the interim
order of any court or tribunal. In other words,
the State Government or its instrumentality
should have employed the employee and
continued him in service voluntarily and
continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not
be illegal, even if irregular. Where the
appointments are not made or continued
against sanctioned posts or where the persons
appointed do not possess the prescribed
minimum qualifications, the appointments will
be considered to be illegal. But where the
person employed possessed the prescribed
qualifications and was working against
sanctioned posts, but had been selected
without undergoing the process of open
competitive selection, such appointments
are considered to be irregular .
Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned
Government or instrumentality, to take steps to
regularize the services of those irregularly
appointed employees who had served for more
than ten years without the benefit or
protection of any interim orders of courts or
tribunals, as a one-time measure.
‟
44. Going by the above legal position, in the present
cases, at the highest, the respondents could be
considered to be „irregularly‟ appointed and
therefore would, even on the touchstone of Umadevi
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 62 of 112

(supra), be eligible for regularization. The law in M.L.
Kesari (supra), has been reiterated in Amarkant Rai
Vrs. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 265, Sheo Narain
Nagar Vrs. State of U.P., AIR 2018 SC 233 and
Rajnish Kumar Mishra Vrs. State of U.P., (2019) 17
SCC 648.”
8.30. In Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vrs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91 = (2023) 3 SCC 639 , it
has been restated as follows:
“ The Division Bench rightly held that the learned *
Single Judge has not followed the principle of law as
given by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and
Others Vrs. Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, as
initial appointment must be done by the competent
authority and there must be a sanctioned post on
which the daily rated employee must be working .

”*

8.31. At this stage it is reminded of that, every holder of a
public office is a trustee whose highest duty is to the
people of the country and, therefore, every act of the
holder of a public office, irrespective of the label
classifying that act, is in discharge of public duty meant
ultimately for public good. [See, Shrilekha Vidyarthi
(Kumari) Vrs. State of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 212 ].
8.32. In such view of the matter, the impugned Order dated
09.08.2019 of the Commissioner- cum- Secretary to
Government, Department of Higher Education
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 63 of 112

(Annexure-11) cannot be sustained inasmuch as non-
adherence to the provisions of the ORV Act, 1975 has
been taken as a factor to dispel the claim of the
petitioner for regularization in service.

9. So far as “illegal” engagement or “irregular” engagement
is concerned, this Court may notice the Judgment in
Niranjan Nayak Vrs. State of Odisha & Others, 2023 (I)
OLR 407, wherein the observation of this Court runs as
follows:
in the case of Amarendra Kumar
“12. Similarly,
Mahapatra and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and
Others, (2014) 4 SCC 583 = AIR 2014 SC 1716, the
Supreme Court was of the opinion that the
appellants were entitled to regularization in
service having regard to the fact that they have
rendered long years of service on ad hoc basis .
13. In the case at hand, it can be ascertained that the
petitioner was appointed against a substantive
vacant post and he had been discharging his duties
in the said post since 1993. The appointment was
made on an ad hoc basis and was extended from
time to time. Since the petitioner was appointed
against substantive vacancy and the post was
sanctioned by higher authorities, the petitioner
should have been extended the benefit of
regulatisation like other similarly situated
persons. ”
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 64 of 112

9.1. Culling out distinction between and
“illegal” “irregular”
appointments in Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra Vrs. State
of Odisha, (2014) 4 SCC 583 = AIR 2014 SC 1716 it has
been laid down as follows:
“7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception
to the general principles against „regularisation‟
enunciated in Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, if the
following conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The employee concerned should have worked
for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post
without the benefit or protection of the interim
order of any Court or tribunal. In other words,
the State Government or its instrumentality
should have employed the employee and
continued him in service voluntarily and
continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should
not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the
appointments are not made or continued
against sanctioned posts or where the persons
appointed do not possess the prescribed
minimum qualifications, the appointments will
be considered to be illegal. But where the
person employed possessed the prescribed
qualifications and was working against
sanctioned posts, but had been selected
without undergoing the process of open
competitive selection, such appointments
are considered to be irregular. ”
9.2. It is emerged from communication vide Letter dated
06.03.2018 issued by the Principal, SWAC addressed to
the Director, Higher Education Department that
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 65 of 112

pursuant to the selection process being undertaken the
petitioner was engaged and the sanction and vacancy
position with respect to Laboratory Attendant is
discernible from signed document dated 11.02.2015 of
the Principal of SWAC coupled with information
furnished to the petitioner in Letter dated 29.11.2025 by
the Public Information Officer of SWAC. Indubitably the
documents available on record establishes the fact that
the petitioner continued to work in the post and has
been discharging duties as assigned since 2005 (even
prior threreto) till date. It can, thus, safely be said that
such appointment on temporary/contractual basis may
be treated by the Authorities as “irregular”, but at no
stretch of imagination be stated to be “illegal” in view of
legal position set forth in Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra
Vrs. State of Odisha, (2014) 4 SCC 583 = AIR 2014 SC
1716.

Views expressed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India:
10. It is felt apposite to have regard to certain decisions qua
regularisation in service of employees engaged on
contractual/NMR/DLR/Temporary, etc . basis and
rendered service for substantial number of years
continuously.
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 66 of 112

10.1. Reference can be had to Union of India Vrs. Subhankari
Das, 2023 (III) ILR-CUT 979, wherein it has been stated
that,
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
“5.
after going through the records, it is admitted that
the opposite parties are discharging their duties and
responsibilities from the date of their initial
appointment in the year 1995 and 2002. In the year
2017, their designations were changed without any
change of remuneration. Without regularising their
services, the authorities issued a circular on
15.02.2018, which is absolutely a camouflaged way
of approach to the difficulties of the opposite parties
to deprive them of the benefit of their regularisation
after utilising their services from 1995 and 2002,
i.e., for more than 23 years and 16 years by then.
6. The reliance was placed by the present petitioners
before the Tribunal on the cases of State of
Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1;
Government of Tamil Nadu Vrs. Tamil Nadu Makkal
Nala Paniyalargal, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 393 and
Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vrs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91 and submission was
made that there was no sanctioned post available
for engagement of the opposite parties and that the
process of engagement of the opposite parties was
not in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. Therefore, the opposite parties have no right
for regularisation.
7. The above stand of the petitioners cannot have any
application to the case of the present opposite
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 67 of 112

parties, as because, in a case of similarly situated
persons, i.e. Basanta Kumar Sahoo Vrs. Union of
India, W.P.(C) No.24759 of 2012, disposed of on
31.07.2017, relying on the decisions rendered in
Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka
Vrs. M.L. Keshari, 2010 (II) OLR (SC) 932 = (2010) 9
SCC 247, direction was issued for regularisation of
such employees. Similarly, in the case of Manoj
Kumar Jena Vrs. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 24758
of 2012, disposed of 31.07.2017, this Court also
took the similar view as was taken in the case of
Basanta Kumar Sahoo (supra). The order passed in
the case of Manoj Kumar Jena (supra) was assailed
by the authorities before the Apex Court in S.L.P.
No.35963 of 2017, which was dismissed vide order
dated 05.01.2018. Thereby, the order passed by
this Court in Manoj Kumar Jena (supra) got affirmed
in the apex Court. Here, it is worth mentioning that
in both the cases indicted above, i.e. in the case of
Basanta Kumar Sahoo and Manoj Kumar Jena
(supra), the orders have been passed by one of us
(Dr. B.R. Sarangi, ACJ). The said order having been
affirmed by the apex Court, as a consequence
thereof, the same has been implemented. The
decision of Basanta Kumar Sahoo (supra) was
referred to by the High Court of Delhi in the case of
Amrish Kumar Vrs. Indian Institute of Mass
Communication, W.P.(C) No.5906 of 2018 & CM Appl
No.23016 of 2018, disposed of on 14.02.2020 [2020
SCC OnLine Del 1915].
8. In Amrish Kumar (supra), the High Court of Delhi
observed as follows:
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 68 of 112

In the present case too, the workmen
„
admittedly have been working for 23 years. It
clearly tantamount to unfair labour practice by
denying them the benefits of regular services
for 23 years. The objective of the Act is to prevent
unfair labour practice which is defined in detail in
5th Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
with reference to Section 2A. The specific definition
applicable to the present case is clause 10 which
reads as under:
„10. To employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or
temporaries and to continue them as such for
years, with the object of depriving them of the
status and privileges of permanent workmen.‟
The facts of the instant case as discussed
hereinabove clearly shows that keeping the
workmen in uninterrupted service for 23 years
as casual workmen and denying them the
status and privilege of permanent workmen,
constitutes unfair labour practice which is
illegal and needs to be quashed. Furthermore,
similarly situated workmen of the respondent who
worked in its other administrative unit in Orissa
(Dhenkanal), for roughly half a century on ad hoc
basis, have been directed by the Orissa High Court
in Basanta Kumar Sahoo Vrs. Union of India, W.P.(C)
No.24759 of 2012, decided on 31.07.2017 to be
regularized. The said judgment has referred to and
relied upon Umadevi (supra) and State of Karnataka
Vrs. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247. The SLP against
the said judgment of the Orissa High Court was
dismissed by the Supreme Court on 05.01.2018;
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 69 of 112

therefore, it has attained finality. The case of the
present petitioners is identical. That being the
position i.e. they had worked for almost 23 years;
the employer was same; they had been working
against the sanctioned posts; they were not
considered as regular employees, therefore, the
treatment meted out to them constitutes unfair
labour practice. In the circumstances, their services
too shall be regularized from initial date of joining,
with all consequential benefits.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that the decision
rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Amrish
Kumar (supra) was challenged before the apex Court
in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 710 of 2021,
which was dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2021
and, as a consequence thereof, the same has also
been implemented. Therefore, the Central
Administrative Tribunal, relying on the said
judgment, having passed the order impugned, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. As
such, the order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal dated 13.07.2023 in O.A. No. 260/00/163
of 2018 is hereby confirmed and the petitioners
are directed to regularise the service of the
opposite parties from initial date of their
joining with all consequential benefits within a
period of sixty days from the date of receipt of
the order
.”
10.2. The view of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India expressed in
the case of Jaggo Vrs. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3826 = 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1032 , is as follows
(extracted from SCC):
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 70 of 112

It is well established that the decision in Uma
“20.
Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize
employees who have rendered long years of
service fulfilling ongoing and necessary
functions of the State or its instrumentalities.
The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor
entries and illegal appointments that circumvent
constitutional requirements. However, where
appointments were not illegal but possibly
“irregular,” and where employees had served
continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned
functions for a considerable period, the need for a
fair and humane resolution becomes paramount.
Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service
performing tasks inherently required on a regular
basis can, over the time, transform what was
initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario
demanding fair regularization. In a recent
judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar Vrs. Union
of India, (2024) 1 SCR 1230, it was held that held
that procedural formalities cannot be used to
deny regularization of service to an employee
whose appointment was termed “temporary”
but has performed the same duties as
performed by the regular employee over a
considerable period in the capacity of the
regular employee. The relevant paras of this
judgment have been reproduced below:
„6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi
(supra) by the High Court does not fit
squarely with the facts at hand, given the
specific circumstances under which the
appellants were employed and have
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 71 of 112

continued their service. The reliance on
procedural formalities at the outset
cannot be used to perpetually deny
substantive rights that have accrued
over a considerable period through
continuous service. Their promotion was
based on a specific notification for vacancies
and a subsequent circular, followed by a
selection process involving written tests and
interviews, which distinguishes their case
from the appointments through back door
entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi
(supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra)
also distinguished between “irregular” and
“illegal” appointments underscoring the
importance of considering certain
appointments even if were not made strictly
in accordance with the prescribed Rules and
Procedure, cannot be said to have been
made illegally if they had followed the
procedures of regular appointments such as
conduct of written examinations or
interviews as in the present case. ‟ *
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the
initial label of the appellants‟ engagements and the
outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal.
Courts must look beyond the surface labels and
consider the realities of employment: continuous,
long-term service, indispensable duties, and
absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their
appointments. In that light, refusing
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 72 of 112

regularization simply because their original
terms did not explicitly state so, or because
an outsourcing policy was belatedly
introduced, would be contrary to principles of
fairness and equity.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary
employment contracts , as exemplified in this
case, reflects a broader systemic issue that
adversely affects workers‟ rights and job
security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig
economy has led to an increase in precarious
employment arrangements, often characterized by
lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment.
Such practices have been criticized for exploiting
workers and undermining labour standards.
Government institutions, entrusted with upholding
the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even
greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative
employment practices. When public sector entities
engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not
only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the
gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent
that can erode public trust in governmental
operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of
which India is a founding member, has
consistently advocated for employment stability
and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO‟s
Multinational Enterprises Declaration [International
Labour Organization— Tripartite Declaration of
Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and
Social Policy] encourages companies to provide
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 73 of 112

stable employment and to observe obligations
concerning employment stability and social
security. It emphasizes that enterprises should
assume a leading role in promoting
employment security, particularly in contexts
where job discontinuation could exacerbate
long-term unemployment .
24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the
case of Vizcaino Vrs. Microsoft Corporation, 97
F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996) serves as a pertinent
example from the private sector, illustrating the
consequences of misclassifying employees to
circumvent providing benefits. In this case,
Microsoft classified certain workers as independent
contractors, thereby denying them employee
benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact,
common-law employees and were entitled to the
same benefits as regular employees. The Court
noted that large Corporations have increasingly
adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees
or independent contractors as a means of avoiding
payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing
their profits. This judgment underscores the
principle that the nature of the work performed,
rather than the label assigned to the worker,
should determine employment status and the
corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights
the judiciary‟s role in rectifying such
misclassifications and ensuring that workers
receive fair treatment.
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 74 of 112

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions,
often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While
the foundational purpose of temporary contracts
may have been to address short-term or seasonal
needs, they have increasingly become a
mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to
employees. These practices manifest in several
ways:

Misuse of “Temporary” Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is essential,
recurring, and integral to the functioning of an
institution are often labeled as “temporary” or
“contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of
regular employees. Such misclassification deprives
workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that
regular employees are entitled to, despite
performing identical tasks.
Arbitrary Termination:
Temporary employees are frequently dismissed
without cause or notice, as seen in the present
case. This practice undermines the principles of
natural justice and subjects workers to a state of
constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or
duration of their service.
Lack of Career Progression:
Temporary employees often find themselves
excluded from opportunities for skill development,
promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain
stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic
disparity between them and their regular
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 75 of 112

counterparts, despite their contributions being
equally significant.
Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees, effectively
replacing one set of exploited workers with
another. This practice not only perpetuates
exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate
effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular
employment.
Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied
fundamental benefits such as pension, provident
fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when
their tenure spans decades. This lack of social
security subjects them and their families to undue
hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement,
or unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra)
sought to curtail the practice of backdoor
entries and ensure appointments adhered to
constitutional principles, it is regrettable that
its principles are often misinterpreted or
misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-
serving employees. This judgment aimed to
distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular”
appointments. It categorically held that employees
in irregular appointments, who were engaged in
duly sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years, should be
considered for regularization as a one-time
measure. However, the laudable intent of the
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 76 of 112

judgment is being subverted when institutions rely
on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of
employees, even in cases where their
appointments are not illegal, but merely lack
adherence to procedural formalities. Government
departments often cite the judgment in Uma
Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary
employees, overlooking the judgment‟s
explicit acknowledgment of cases where
regularization is appropriate. This selective
application distorts the judgment's spirit and
purpose, effectively weaponizing it against
employees who have rendered indispensable
services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for Government departments to lead by
example in providing fair and stable employment.
Engaging workers on a temporary basis for
extended periods, especially when their roles are
integral to the organization's functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but
also exposes the organization to legal challenges
and undermines employee morale. By ensuring
fair employment practices, Government
institutions can reduce the burden of
unnecessary litigation, promote job security,
and uphold the principles of justice and
fairness that they are meant to embody. This
approach aligns with international standards and
sets a positive precedent for the private sector to
follow, thereby contributing to the overall
betterment of labour practices in the country.”
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 77 of 112

10.3. In the case of Shripal Vrs. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 221 = 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 153 referring to
observations rendered in Jaggo (supra) , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has been pleased to clarify that
(extracted from SCC):
“16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer‟s
inability to justify these abrupt terminations.
Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily
wages with some measure of parity in minimum
pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated
precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were
left in a marginally improved yet still
uncertain status. While the High Court
recognized the importance of their work and hinted
at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them
continuity of service or meaningful back wages
commensurate with the degree of statutory
violation evident on record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer‟s
discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands
in violation of the most basic labour law principles.
Once it is established that their services were
terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that
they were engaged in essential, perennial duties,
these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual
uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget
and compliance with recruitment rules merit
consideration, such concerns do not absolve the
Employer of statutory obligations or negate
equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 78 of 112

limitations cannot trump the legitimate
rights of workmen who have served
continuously in de facto regular roles for an
extended period .
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent
they confine the Appellant Workmen to future
daily-wage engagement without continuity or
meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with
the following directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant
Workmen‟s services, effected without
compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is
declared illegal. All orders or
communications terminating their services
are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant
Workmen shall be treated as continuing in
service from the date of their termination, for
all purposes, including seniority and
continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the
Appellant Workmen in their respective posts
(or posts akin to the duties they previously
performed) within four weeks from the date
of this judgment. Their entire period of
absence (from the date of termination until
actual reinstatement) shall be counted for
continuity of service and all consequential
benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for
promotions, if any.
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 79 of 112

III. Considering the length of service, the
Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50%
of the back wages from the date of their
discontinuation until their actual
reinstatement. The Respondent Employer
shall clear the aforesaid dues within three
months from the date of their reinstatement.
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to
initiate a fair and transparent process for
regularizing the Appellant Workmen within
six months from the date of reinstatement,
duly considering the fact that they have
performed perennial municipal duties akin to
permanent posts. In assessing
regularization, the Employer shall not impose
educational or procedural criteria
retroactively if such requirements were never
applied to the Appellant Workmen or to
similarly situated regular employees in the
past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies
for such duties exist or are required, the
Respondent Employer shall expedite all
necessary administrative processes to
ensure these long time employees are not
indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary
to statutory and equitable norms.”
10.4. In Dharam Singh Vrs. State of U.P., (2025) 8 SCR 1026 it
has been observed thus:
“9. Moreover, it is undisputed that the nature of work
performed by the appellants, i.e., sorting and
scrutiny of applications, dispatch and office support,
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 80 of 112

and driving, has been continuous and integral to
the Commission‟s functioning since their engagement
between 1989 and 1992. The Commission itself
moved for sanction of fourteen posts and furnished a
list of fourteen daily wagers including the
appellants. That consistent internal demand,
coupled with uninterrupted utilisation of the
appellants‟ labour on regular office hours,
fortifies the conclusion that the duties are
perennial. To continue extracting such work
for decades while pleading want of sanctioned
strength is a position that cannot be sustained.
*
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and
Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a
convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and
to sidestep fair engagement practices where the
work is inherently perennial. The Commission‟s
further contention that the appellants are not “full-
time” employees but continue only by virtue of
interim orders also does not advance their case.
That interim protection was granted precisely
because of the long history of engagement and
the pendency of the challenge to the State‟s
refusals . It neither creates rights that did not exist
nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a
proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
*
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to
recall that the State (here referring to both the
Union and the State Governments) is not a mere
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 81 of 112

market participant but a constitutional
employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs
of those who perform the most basic and recurring
public functions. Where work recurs day after day
and year after year, the establishment must reflect
that reality in its sanctioned strength and
engagement practices. The long term extraction of
regular labour under temporary labels corrodes
confidence in public administration and offends the
promise of equal protection. Financial stringency
certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a
talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the
duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that
“ad-hocism” thrives where administration is
opaque. The State Departments must keep and
produce accurate establishment registers,
muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements,
and they must explain, with evidence, why they
prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned
posts where the work is perennial.
If “constraint”
is invoked, the record should show what
alternatives were considered, why similarly placed
workers were treated differently, and how the
chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of
the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human
consequences of prolonged insecurity is not
sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that
should inform every decision affecting those who
keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the
appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 82 of 112

duties, and the material indicating vacancies and
comparator regularisations, we issue the following
directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary
posts:
All appellants shall stand regularized with
effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the
High Court directed a fresh recommendation by
the Commission and a fresh decision by the
State on sanctioning posts for the appellants.
For this purpose, the State and the successor
establishment (U.P. Education Services
Selection Commission) shall create
supernumerary posts in the corresponding
cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and
Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent)
without any caveats or preconditions. On
regularization, each appellant shall be placed
at not less than the minimum of the regular
pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-
drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall
be entitled to the subsequent increments in the
pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority
and promotion, service shall count from the
date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each
appellant shall be paid as arrears the full
difference between (a) the pay and admissible
allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-
level for the post from time to time, and (b) the
amounts actually paid, for the period from
24.04.2002 until the date of regularization/
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 83 of 112

retirement/death, as the case may be.
Amounts already paid under previous interim
directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears
shall be released within three months and if in
default, the unpaid amount shall carry
compound interest at 6% per annum from the
date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has
already retired shall be granted regularization
with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of
superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under
clause (ii), and recalculation of pension,
gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised
pension and terminal dues shall be paid within
three months of this Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant
No. 5 and any other appellant who has died
during pendency, his/her legal representatives
on record shall be paid the arrears under
clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with
all terminal/retiral dues recalculated
consistently with clause (i), within three
months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Government of
Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P.
Education Services Selection Commission or the
prevalent competent authority, shall file an
affidavit of compliance before this Court within
four months of this Judgement.
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 84 of 112

20. We have framed these directions comprehensively
because, case after case, orders of this Court in such
matters have been met with fresh technicalities,
rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift
which further prolongs the insecurity for those who
have already laboured for years on daily wages.
Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such
cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it
demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines,
and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional
employer, the State is held to a higher standard and
therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a
sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful
engagement, and implement judicial directions in
letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is
not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious
method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity
for these workers. The operative scheme we have set
here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts,
full regularization, subsequent financial benefits,
and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a
pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes
and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and
transparency in administration are not matters of
grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21
of the Constitution of India.”
10.5. Recognising long years of service of contractual
employee, in Bhola Nath Vrs. State of Jharkhand, 2026
SCC OnLine SC 129 duty of the State as model employer
has been highlighted as follows:
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 85 of 112

“ISSUE II.
Whether the action/inaction of the respondent-State
in not recognizing the appellants‟ continuous
service for the purpose of regularization is arbitrary
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India?
10. The learned Single Judge, vide common order,
dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants
seeking a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent State to regularize their services. In
doing so, the writ Court placed reliance on the terms
and conditions of the employment agreement
entered into between the appellants and the
respondents. The learned Single Judge, in this
regard, recorded the following findings:
i. The appellants were appointed on a purely
contractual basis pursuant to a decision of the
Finance Department to fill 22 sanctioned posts
through contractual engagement, the
expenditure being met from non-plan funds.
Following issuance of an advertisement and
completion of the selection process, the
appellants were appointed by entering into
contracts of employment for an initial period of
one year, extendable from time to time for fixed
durations.
ii. The appellants were granted extensions
periodically, with the last extensions having
been issued in the year 2023 as a one-time
measure. The respondent-State treated the
said decision as a conscious policy
determination, which, according to the learned
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 86 of 112

Single Judge, did not warrant interference by
the Court.
iii. The appellants were held not entitled to
regularization under the regularization scheme
framed by the respondent-State in the year
2015, as modified in 2019, which prescribed
completion of ten years of continuous service
as on the cut-off year 2019. It was further
noted that the appellants had not laid any
challenge to the validity of the said
regularization scheme.
iv. Since the appellants were appointed on a
contractual basis and continued only through
periodic extensions, it was held that they did
not possess any statutory or legal right to
continue in service once the contractual period,
including its extensions, came to an end.
v. Emphasis was laid on the fact that the
appellants were fully aware, and were put to
notice on each occasion of renewal, that their
engagement was contractual and limited to a
specified tenure. In view thereof, the learned
Single Judge held that no question of legitimate
expectation or enforceable right to renewal or
regularization could arise, nor could any right
be said to have crystallised in their favour.
vi. It was further noted that the appellants had
not been replaced by another set of contractual
employees. On the contrary, the material on
record indicated that the respondent-State had
undertaken regular recruitment and appointed
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 87 of 112

nine persons as regular employees through a
fresh advertisement.
10.1. Aggrieved by the decision of the writ Court, the
appellants preferred intra-Court appeals before the
High Court. The learned Division Bench upheld the
judgment of the writ Court and recorded the
following findings:
i. The law relating to regularization or absorption
of contractual employees was held to be well
settled, namely that such employees are
governed by the terms and conditions of their
engagement, the relationship being founded
upon a bilateral contract between the employee
and the employer.
ii. It was further held that the terms and
conditions of a contract cannot be altered, nor
can new conditions be introduced, by issuance
of judicial directions, as doing so would
amount to impermissible re-writing of the
contract. Once the parties have consciously
entered into contractual terms, they cannot
subsequently resile therefrom or question those
conditions.
State as model employer:
11. At the outset, we find it necessary to express our
disapproval of the manner in which the High Court
has approached the present lis. The controversy
before the Court was not one of mere acquiescence
or implied waiver of rights. The High Court, in our
view, has proceeded on a mechanical application of
precedents without engaging with the core
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 88 of 112

constitutional issues involved, thereby reducing the
dispute to one of acceptance of contractual terms,
divorced from its larger constitutional context.
11.1. This Court has consistently held that the State,
being a model employer, is saddled with a
heightened obligation in the discharge of its
functions. A model employer is expected to act with
high probity, fairness and candour, and bears a
social responsibility to treat its employees in a
manner that preserves their dignity. The State
cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or to
take advantage of their vulnerability, helplessness
or unequal bargaining position.
11.2. It therefore follows that the State is required to
exercise heightened caution in its role as an
employer, the constitutional mandate casting upon it
a strict obligation to act as a model employer, an
obligation from which no exception can be
countenanced.
*
Legitimate Expectation of the employees:
13. Another facet requiring consideration in the case of
contractual employees, such as the present
appellants, is the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Where employees have continued to discharge their
duties on contractual posts for a considerable length
of time, as in the present case, it is but natural that
a legitimate expectation arises that the State would,
at some stage, recognize their long and continuous
service. It is in this belief, bolstered by repeated
extensions granted by the Executive, that such
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 89 of 112

employees continue in service and refrain from
seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding
the contractual nature of their engagement. At this
juncture, it is thus apposite to advert to the
principles governing the doctrine of legitimate
expectation as enunciated by this Court in Army
Welfare Education Society Vrs. Sunil Kumar Sharma,
(2024) 16 SCC 598, wherein it was held as follows:
„63. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings
forth the following features regarding the
doctrine of legitimate expectation:
63.1. First, legitimate expectation must be based on
a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or
anticipation;
63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise
either from an express or implied promise; or a
consistent past practice or custom followed by
an authority in its dealings;

…
63.5. Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the
realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate
action can be taken only when a public
authority breaches a promise or deviates from
a consistent past practice, without any
reasonable basis.
...
64. The aforesaid features, although not
exhaustive in nature, are sufficient to help us
in deciding the applicability of the doctrine of
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 90 of 112

legitimate expectation to the facts of the case at
hand. It is clear that legitimate expectation,
jurisprudentially, was a device created in order
to maintain a check on arbitrariness in State
action. It does not extend to and cannot govern
the operation of contracts between private
parties, wherein the doctrine of promissory
estoppel holds the field.‟
It is, therefore, not difficult to comprehend the
expectation with which such contractual employees
continue in the service of the State. The repeated
conduct of the employer-State in expressing
confidence in their performance and consistently
granting monetary upgrades & tenure extensions
reasonably nurtures an expectation that their long
and continuous service would receive further
recognition.
13.1. Another Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, cautioned that the
doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot ordinarily
be extended to persons whose appointments are
temporary, casual or contractual in nature. The
relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows:
„47. When a person enters a temporary employment
or gets engagement as a contractual or casual
worker and the engagement is not based on a
proper selection as recognised by the relevant
rules or procedure, he is aware of the
consequences of the appointment being
temporary, casual or contractual in nature.
Such a person cannot invoke the theory of
legitimate expectation for being confirmed in
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 91 of 112

the post when an appointment to the post could
be made only by following a proper procedure
for selection and in cases concerned, in
consultation with the Public Service
Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate
expectation cannot be successfully advanced
by temporary, contractual or casual employees.
It cannot also be held that the State has held
out any promise while engaging these persons
either to continue them where they are or to
make them permanent. The State cannot
constitutionally make such a promise. It is also
obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to
seek a positive relief of being made permanent
in the post.‟
However, this Court in Umadevi (supra) clarified that
the bar against invocation of the doctrine of
legitimate expectation applies only to those
temporary, contractual or casual employees whose
engagement was not preceded by a proper selection
process in accordance with the extant rules.
Consequently, where such engagement is made
after following a due and lawful selection procedure,
there is no absolute bar in law preventing such
employees from invoking the doctrine of legitimate
expectation.
Limits on Perpetual Contractual Engagements:
13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had
engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned
posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the
end of the year 2022 that the respondents
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 92 of 112

communicated that no further extension of the
appellants‟ engagement was likely to be granted.
13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is not
only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear
derogation of the equality principles enshrined in
Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent-State
initially engaged the appellants in their youth to
discharge public duties and functions. Having
rendered long and dedicated service, the appellants
cannot now be left to fend for themselves,
particularly when the employment opportunities that
may have been available to them a decade ago are
no longer accessible owing to age constraints.
13.4. We are unable to discern any rational basis for the
respondent-State‟s decision to discontinue the
appellants after nearly ten years of continuous
service. We are conscious that the symbiotic-
relationship between the appellants and the
respondent-State was mutually beneficial, the State
derived the advantage of the appellants‟ experience
and institutional familiarity, while the appellants
remained in public service. In such circumstances,
any departure from a long-standing practice of
renewal, particularly one that frustrates the
legitimate expectation of the employees, ought to be
supported by cogent reasons recorded in a speaking
order.
13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and
reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily
discharged his duties over several years and has
been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight,
be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 93 of 112

to accept the justification advanced by the
respondents as the obligation of the State, as a
model employer, extends to fair treatment of its
employees irrespective of whether their engagement
is contractual or regular.
13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the
practice adopted by States of engaging employees
under the nominal labels of “part-time”,
“contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and
thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their
positions. In Jaggo Vrs. Union of India, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826, this Court underscored that
government-departments must lead by example in
ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved
the test of examining whether the duties performed
by such temporary employees are integral to the
day-to-day functioning of the organization.
13.7. In Shripal Vrs. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
221 and Vinod Kumar Vrs. Union of India, (2024) 9
SCC 327, this Court cautioned against a mechanical
and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny
regularization to temporary employees in the
absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi
(supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise
exploitative engagements continued for years
without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court
further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a
distinction between appointments that are “illegal”
and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter
being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of
the prescribed conditions.
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 94 of 112

13.8. In Dharam Singh Vrs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1735, this Court strongly deprecated the
culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their
capacity as employers. The Court criticised the
practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment
as a means to evade regular employment
obligations, observing that such measures
perpetuate precarious working conditions while
circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices.
13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time
employees, such as the appellants, constitute an
integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery
of the State continues to function. They are not
merely ancillary to the system, but form essential
components thereof. The equality mandate of our
Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be
reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness,
ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the
careers and livelihood of such part-time and
contractual employees are guided by fairness and
reason.
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to
persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State‟s
contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of
the appellants‟ engagement denudes them of
constitutional protection. The State, having availed of
the appellants‟ services on sanctioned posts for over
a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and
having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory
performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent
reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue
such engagement by taking refuge behind formal
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 95 of 112

contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly
arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the
State to act as a model employer, and fails to
withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the
Constitution.”

10.6. In Sheo Narain Nagar Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2017)
11 SCR 138, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized such
employment on temporary status as on exploitative
terms. The pertinent observation made in the said case
is quoted hereunder:
When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is
“8.
painful to note that the decision in Uma Devi
(Supra) has not been properly understood and
rather wrongly applied by various State
Governments. We have called for the data in the
instant case to ensure as to how many employees
were working on contract basis or ad-hoc basis or
daily-wage basis in different State departments. We
can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid
practice is being continued. Though this Court has
emphasised that incumbents should be
appointed on regular basis as per rules but
new devise of making appointment on contract
basis has been adopted, employment is offered
on daily wage basis etc. in exploitative forms.
This situation was not envisaged by Uma Devi
(supra). The prime intendment of the decision was
that the employment process should be by fair
means and not by back door entry and in the
available pay scale. That spirit of the Uma Devi
(supra) has been ignored and conveniently over
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 96 of 112

looked by various State Governments/
authorities. We regretfully make the
observation that Uma Devi (supra) has not be
implemented in its true spirit and has not been
followed in its pith and substance. It is being
used only as a tool for not regularizing the services
of incumbents. They are being continued in service
without payment of due salary for which they are
entitled on the basis of Article 14, l6 read with
Article 34(1)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they
have no constitutional protection as envisaged in
D.S. Nakara Vrs. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130
from cradle to grave. In heydays of life they are
serving on exploitative terms with no guarantee of
livelihood to be continued and in old age they are
going to be destituted, there being no provision for
pension, retiral benefits etc. There is clear
contravention of constitutional provisions and
aspiration of down trodden class. They do have
equal rights and to make them equals they
require protection and cannot be dealt with
arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is not
only bad but equally unconstitutional and is denial
of rights. We have to strike a balance to really
implement the ideology of Uma Devi (supra). Thus,
the time has come to stop the situation where Uma
Devi (supra) can be permitted to be flouted, whereas,
this Court has interdicted such employment way
back in the year 2006. The employment cannot be
on exploitative terms, whereas Uma Devi
(supra) laid down that there should not be back
door entry and every post should be filled by
regular employment, but a new device has been
adopted for making appointment on payment
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 97 of 112

of paltry system on contract/adhoc basis or
otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible,
when we consider the pith and substance of true
spirit in Umadevi (supra).
9. Coming to the facts of the instant case, there was a
direction issued way back in the year 1999, to
consider the regularization of the appellants.
However, regularization was not done. The
respondents chose to give minimum of the pay scale,
which was available to the regular employees, way
back in the year 2000 and by passing an order, the
appellants were also conferred temporary status in
the year 2006, with retrospective effect on
2.10.2002. As the respondents have themselves
chosen to confer a temporary status to the
employees, as such there was requirement at
work and posts were also available at the
particular point of time when order was
passed. Thus, the submission raised by learned
counsel for the respondent that posts were not
available, is belied by their own action. Obviously,
the order was passed considering the long
period of services rendered by the appellants,
which were taken on exploitative terms.
10. The High Court dismissed the writ application
relying on the decision in Umadevi (supra). But the
appellants were employed basically in the year
1993; they had rendered service for three
years, when they were offered the service on
contract basis; it was not the case of back door
entry; and there were no Rules in place for
offering such kind of appointment. Thus, the
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 98 of 112

appointment could not be said to be illegal and in
contravention of Rules, as there were no such Rules
available at the relevant point of time, when their
temporary status was conferred with effect from
02.10.2002. The appellants were required to be
appointed on regular basis as a one-time
measure, as laid down in paragraph 53 of
Umadevi (supra). Since the appellants had
completed 10 years of service and temporary
status had been given by the respondents with
retrospective effect in the 02.10.2002, we
direct that the services of the appellants be
regularized from the said date i.e. 02.10.2002,
consequential benefits and the arrears of pay
also to be paid to the appellants within a
period of three months from today .”

10.7. In Prafull Kumar Behera Vrs. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC
OnLine Ori 2416 relying on the General Administration
Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013, it has been
observed as follows:
“8.6. In Sheo Narain Nagar Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2017) 11 SCR 138, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
recognized such employment on temporary status as
on exploitative terms. The pertinent observation
made in the said case is quoted hereunder: *
8.7. It is manifest from record that by now the petitioner
Appellant, being appointed by duly authorized
Appointing Authority, has completed more than 10
years of service, which is requisite length of service
for consideration of regularization in service as per
Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 [although the
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 99 of 112

Government of Odisha has accepted six years of
satisfactory service for regularization in terms of
Resolution dated 17.09.2013 read with Resolution
dated 16.01.2014] and the authorities of the
Regional Transport Officer employed the petitioner-
Appellant and extended his terms in service
voluntarily and continuously for more than ten

years.”
10.8. Having regard to the legal perspective enunciated in
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi, (2006) 3 SCR
953 = (2006) 4 SCC 1; State of Karnataka & Others Vrs.
M.L. Kesari & Others, (2010) 9 SCR 543 = (2010) 9 SCC
247; Jaggo Vrs. Union of India, (2024) 12 SCR 1235;
Shripal Vrs. Nagar Nigam, (2025) 1 SCR 1427; Dharam
Singh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 8 SCR 1026;
Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association Vrs. National Textile
Corporation Ltd., (2021) 11 SCR 321 = (2022) 17 SCC
797; Pawan Kumar and Others Vrs. Union of India and
Others, 2026 INSC 156; Bhola Nath Vrs. State of
Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99; National Buildings
Construction Corporation Vrs. S. Raghunathan, (1998) 1
Supp. SCR 156 = (1998) 7 SCC 66 , even if the engagee
was not engaged against a sanctioned post the
regularisation of service was considered in Sukhendu
Bhattacharjee and Others Vrs. The State of Assam and
Others, (2026) 6 SCR 539 , wherein the following view is
expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 100 of 112

It is a settled principle that equals must be
“60.
treated equally, and if persons similarly placed
are treated differently without a rational
basis, it would amount to a violation of Article
14 of the Constitution [Azam Jahi Mill Workers
Association Vrs. National Textile Corporation Ltd.,
(2022) 17 SCC 797]. If two sets of employees stand
on the same footing in terms of date of engagement,
nature of duties, length of service and eligibility
under a declared policy, the State cannot extend a
benefit to one large group and deny it to the smaller
group without demonstrating a valid distinction.
Equality does not allow selective or partial
implementation of a policy. Once a policy decision is
taken to benefit a defined class, it must be applied
uniformly to all who satisfy the prescribed
conditions.
61. In the present case, the State itself framed a policy
in 2005 to regularize Work Charged and Muster Roll
st
workers engaged prior to 1 April, 1993. Pursuant to
the aforesaid policy decision, approximately 30,000
workers were regularized. The appellants belong to
that very category. They were engaged prior to the
cut-off date and have rendered long and continuous
service in the same manner as those who were
regularized. There is no distinguishing feature
shown which separates them from the beneficiaries
of the 2005 decision. Once the State chose to
regularize such a large body of workers forming one
identifiable class, it was under a constitutional
obligation to treat all eligible members of that class
alike. The remaining workers who were left out,
though otherwise eligible, cannot be excluded and
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 101 of 112

denied the same benefit. It is crucial to note that the
exclusion of the appellants from being granted the
benefit of the 2005 decision is not attributable to the
appellants but is rather predicated in the actions of
the State machinery which, on account of
inadvertent errors or clerical mistakes, did not
include the appellants in the list of beneficiary
covered by the said government decision.
62. Recently, in Pawan Kumar and Others Vrs. Union of
India and Others, 2026 INSC 556 this Court
considered a similar situation wherein certain
employees had been regularized but others, though
similarly placed, were left out. This Court held that
such differential treatment was discriminatory and
accordingly granted the same relief to the excluded
employees.
63. Once the State confers a benefit upon a
particular class, it cannot arbitrarily deny the
same benefit to others who are identically
situated. Applying the principle in the present case,
the State, having regularized nearly 30,000 workers
under its own policy decision, could not refuse to
regularize the remaining eligible workers who stood
on the same footing. To do so amounts to treating
equals unequally, which is impermissible under
Article 14 of the Constitution.
*
67. The conduct of the State must also be examined in
light of its status as a model employer. The State is
under a higher constitutional obligation to ensure
that its actions are just, reasonable and non-
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 102 of 112

arbitrary. Recently, this Court in Bhola Nath Vrs.
State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99
reiterated that the State, as a model employer, bears
a heightened constitutional obligation in the
discharge of its functions. It must act with
probity, fairness and candour, and cannot
cloud the disputes involving its employees
under narrow technical grounds divorced from
their broader constitutional context. A model
employer is expected to uphold the dignity of
its employees more so who are at the lowest
pedestal of the hierarchy and to avoid
exploiting their vulnerability or precarious
position. This obligation flows directly from the
Constitution and is not discretionary. Constantly
giving undertakings before a constitutional Court
and thereafter resiling from them does not comport
with the standards expected of a model employer.
An undertaking recorded by a Court is not a casual
statement, but is a solemn representation on the
basis of which judicial orders are passed. The State
cannot approbate and reprobate. It cannot, on the
one hand, secure time and indulgence from the Court
on the assurance that a policy will be implemented
and, on the other, avoid implementation by citing
precedents that were already in existence at the
time the undertakings were furnished.
68. The repeated undertakings given by the State before
the High Court, coupled with the earlier
implementation of the Cabinet decision in favour of
nearly 30,000 similarly situated workers, clearly
gave rise to a legitimate expectation in the minds of
the appellants who were deprived of the benefits of
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 103 of 112

the policy. In the maze of administrative deficiencies,
they were entitled to expect that the policy decision
would be implemented in a fair, complete and non-
discriminatory manner, and that their cases would
also be considered as part of the same exercise.
Though legitimate expectation does not create a
vested right, it is firmly rooted in the principles of
fairness and non-arbitrariness that flows from
Article 14 of the Constitution.
*
76. What emerges from the principles enunciated in the
8
aforesaid decisions is that the State cannot rely
upon the mere form of engagement to deny fair
and equitable treatment to employees who have
served it for long years. The consistent thread
running through these judgments is that Umadevi
(supra) cannot be invoked as a blanket barrier to
justify prolonged and continued engagements of a
temporary or ad hoc nature, especially where the
employees have been discharging essential and
recurring functions of the State. The Court has
repeatedly emphasised that the distinction
between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments
must be kept in view, that long and continuous
service is a relevant consideration, and that
the State, as a model employer, is under a
constitutional obligation to act with fairness,
consistency and reasonableness. The practice
of retaining employees for decades under

8
Bhola Nath Vrs. State of Jharkhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129; Jaggo Vrs. Union
of India, (2024) 1 SCR 1230 = (2024) 9 SCC 327, Shripal Vrs. Nagar Nigam,
(2025) 1 SCR 1427; Dharam Singh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 8 SCR
1026 .
W.P.(C) No.22932 of 2019 Page 104 of 112