Harikrishna Nayak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALPESH Y. KOGJE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 8612 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010201282022
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 18038 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010418962022
IMRAN KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 18107 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010420622022
SANJIV KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 18153 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010421762022
SANJAY KUMAR MAIHAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

2
WRIT PETITION No. 18156 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010421792022
AMBIKESH TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 18202 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010423112022
MANOJ KUMAR MESHRAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 18677 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010434982022
AJAY RAJAK AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20047 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010467062022
BALKESH CHOURASIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20357 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010474952022
AKSHAY KUMAR PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

3
WRIT PETITION No. 22977 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010540062022
INDERJEET PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 27766 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010650422022
SMT. HEMA MEENA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7051 of 2023
CNR No.: MPHC010171782023
HARIKRISHNA NAYAK AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Dixit and Shri K.C. Ghildiyal – Senior Advocates
with Shri A.K. Ahirwar, Shri Anshul Dixit – Advocates, Ms. Sonali Shrivastava,
Shri Sankalp Kochar, Shri Siddhant Kochar, Shri D.K. Tripathi, Ms. Kaushiki
Sharma and Shri Amit Kumar Chaturvedi – Advocates in their respective petitions
appeared for the petitioners.
Dr. Siddharth Singh Chouhan – Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Rahul Diwarkar, Shri Shubham Rai, Shri Pankaj Dubey, Shri Akshay
Khandelwal and Shri V.S. Choudhary – Advocates in their respective petitions
appeared for the respondents.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

4
ORDER
(Reserved on : 26.10.2026)
(Pronounced on : 02.11.2026)
Per : Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Jain, Judge
These petitions are filed by employees working on a contract basis in two
organizations, i.e. in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Scheme (MGNREGS), so also in M.P. Police Housing and Infrastructure
Development Corporation. The petitioners herein are working as Sub Engineers in
these two organizations on contract basis.
2. The petitioners have called into question the advertisement dated
27.07.2022 issued by the M.P. Employee Selection Board for recruitment of
various posts in Group-III i.e. posts of Sub Engineer, Draftsmen, Time Keepers
and equivalent posts in various Engineering departments and Public Sector
Undertakings for projects of the State Government. The advertisement has been
issued for recruitment on a regular basis in various such organizations and
Departments, with which the present petitioners are aggrieved on the ground that it
reduces their chances of being considered for regularization.
3. The petitioners in W.P. Nos.18038/2022, 18153/2022 and 18156/2022 are
working in M.P. Police Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation,
whereas petitioners in all other petitions are working in MGNREGS.
In some of the petitions, only the advertisement is under challenge, whereas in
some of the petitions, by way of amendment, subsequently, challenge has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

5
mounted to the amendment notification dated 01.02.2020, whereby the State
Government has incorporated amendment in M.P. Development Commissioner
Panchayat and Rural Development Class-III, Ministerial and Non-Ministerial
Service Recruitment Rules, 1999 (hereafter for short referred to as "Rules of
1999"), whereby Rule 11(8) has been inserted in the said rules.
Challenge is made to the newly inserted Rule 11(8) on the ground that
it provides for reservation of 20% vacancies for contractual employees in
Departments of the State Government under the fold of Panchayat and Rural
Development Department, and the said amendment in the statutory rules reduces
the chances of contractual employees for being considered for regularization.
Therefore, the said amendment is contrary to the legitimate expectation of the
petitioners to be regularized, and it deserves to be set aside. The same is also being
sought on the ground that it reduces the vested right of the petitioners for
regularization on regular posts.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners are
appointed on contractual basis as Sub Engineers in MGNREGS or in M.P. Police
Housing Corporation during the period 2007 to 2017 on various dates. It is argued
that the petitioners were appointed as Contractual Sub Engineers, but those
petitioners, who have been appointed in MGNREGS after such appointment, have
been sent for working in various other Departments either on deputation or by
attachment and some of them are still working in MGNREGS. It is vehemently
argued that in terms of judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

6
Supreme Court in the case of State of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4
SCC 1 , every employee has a vested right of being regularized by giving a chance
at least once in the career, upon completion of 10 years of service. It is argued that
the directions contained by the Constitution Bench in the paragraph 53 of the
aforesaid judgment to consider the employees for regularization at as a one-time
measure is not specific to the organization, but as specific to the employee and
every employee having put in 10 years of service has a vested right to be given
chance of regularization at least once in the career. It is argued that the impugned
advertisement, so also the impugned amendment to the statutory rules vide
amendment notification dated 01.02.2020 severely reduces, or in fact even
extinguishes the chances of the petitioners for being regularized as Sub Engineers
in their respective organizations or even in other organizations. It is their case that
the State Government has advertised vacant posts for regular recruitment and if the
posts are filled up by regular recruitment, then the chances of the petitioners for
being considered for regularization would be extinguished forever, which would
not be legal, valid and proper. It is argued that such an action runs counter to what
is expected of a model employer. The State and its instrumentalities are expected
to be model employers and they are expected to act in a reasonable manner and not
in an arbitrary or vindictive manner. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned
advertisement for regular recruitment dated 27.07.2022 as modified by the
corrigendum thereto be set aside and directions be issued to first consider all the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

7
contractual employees for regularization and if any vacant posts remain, then to
initiate regular recruitment for such posts.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently relied on an order
dated 05.06.2018 issued by the State Government, whereby the State Government
has decided to convert all the contractual posts into regular posts. It is argued that
the State Government has taken a policy decision by issuing an order dated
05.06.2018 to convert contractual posts to regular posts and if the impugned
advertisement is allowed to stand, then it is contrary to what has been contained in
the policy dated 05.06.2018, whereby the State has already taken a decision to
convert contractual posts into regular posts. Heavy reliance is made on Clause 1.1,
1.2 and 1.3 of the aforesaid policy to contend that the aforesaid clauses gave a
guarantee to the contractual employees of defined service conditions and fair
opportunity to be considered for regularization. However, the impugned
recruitment advertisement, in fact, reduces or even extinguishes the chances of
regularization. Thereby what had been promised by the State Government vide
policy decision dated 05.06.2018, is being deviated from and the promises made to
the petitioners by this policy are being withdrawn, which is not expected of a
model employer and the matter, therefore, requires appropriate directions from this
Court; and the impugned amendment notification in the statutory rules dated
01.02.2020 also deserves to be quashed being ultra vires.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

8
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on judgment of Coordinate
Division Bench of this Court in WA No.453/2016 (Municipal Corporation vs
State of M.P. and others) decided on 09.08.2016 . It has been submitted on the
strength of the aforesaid judgment that the Division Bench of this Court had
directed therein that the Municipal Corporation shall first consider those
employees, who were working since long as Daily Rated Employees, for
regularization, before proceeding ahead with the regular recruitment. In this case
also similar directions need to be issued to the State Government in line with the
aforesaid judgment. It is pointed out that the aforesaid judgment has been
confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.32944 of 2018
and now there is no hurdle in following the said judgment.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
to contend that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the judgment in
the case of Uma Devi (supra) is being used as weapon against the long-serving
employees, who have legitimate claims of regularization. It has been held therein
that employees in irregular appointments, who are engaged in duly sanctioned
posts and had served continuously for more than 10 years should be considered for
regularization. It is, therefore, argued that the present petitioners also have a vested
right for being regularized upon completion of 10 years of service and that right
cannot be taken away by initiating direct recruitment process.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

9
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further argued that the petitioners
have put in 10 to 20 years of service with the State Government or its projects or
its instrumentalities and after having put in such long years of service, now they
are disconnected from academics. They cannot be expected to compete with the
fresh college pass-outs in the recruitment test. They have gained valuable
experience since last 10 to 20 years, which in itself is sufficient to regularize them
in the regular posts. At this juncture when they are between 35 to 55 years old,
they cannot be expected to compete with freshers in academic in recruitment test,
which is academic in nature. It will be unfair and unequal competition between the
petitioners, who have a long experience on the field of 10 to 20 years with the
freshers, who though maybe more strong academically being fresh out of college,
but are not having any field experience, which the petitioners have. However, the
State Government without striking any balance between the two groups have
simply categorized two unequals into one homogeneous group, which also cannot
be said to be legal, valid and proper. It is like putting goats and tigers together and
asking goats and tigers to compete together for a common goal, which is not
expected of a model employer like the State Government.
9. It is also vehemently argued that there was a merit based competitive
process at the time of recruitment of the petitioners at the time of their contractual
appointment, therefore, they cannot be termed as back-door appointees. Once
having faced a selection process, they have valid right to be regularized, and
cannot be made to face another process for being regularized.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

10
10. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued
that the petitioners have no vested right for regularization. It is argued that the
petitioners are not daily rated employees, who may claim to be regularized in
service. In fact, the petitioners were appointed as contractual employees against
the posts, which are sanctioned to be filled up by employees on contract basis. The
petitioners were duly appointed against sanctioned contractual posts with clear
stipulation in the appointment orders that they are being appointed against
contractual posts and they would not claim any regularization.
It is argued that the petitioners accepted their appointments with open eyes on
contractual posts. The posts are duly sanctioned, but are on contractual basis. It is
not the case of appointing a Daily Rated Employees against a sanctioned vacant
regular post, but it is a case of appointment of an employee on contractual basis
against a contractual post and now he wants conversion of his contractual post into
regular post.
11. It is argued that though the petitioners may have faced some merit-based
selection process at the time of appointment on contractual basis, but the said
process cannot be equated to the open competitive examination being organized
through Employees Selection Board. Even otherwise, the petitioner's status as
contractual employees is not being interfered with and they would continue on
contractual basis till the projects on which they are working come to an end. It is
not as if that the contractual posts have been converted into regular posts and
advertised to be filled up by fresh graduates, but it is a case where there are distinct
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

11
sets of posts, one regular and one contractual and the petitioners who have been
appointed on contractual posts, are now aggrieved by the State Government filling
up the regular posts, which are in a separate set up. It is argued that the petitioners
could have had a valid cause of grievance only if the posts that were being filled
up were created by converting the contractual posts into regular posts and the
petitioners were not being given any opportunity to be absorbed on such posts, and
the petitioners were being faced with retrenchment or termination of their services.
However, this case is not so and the petitioners do not face any adverse action by
the impugned recruitment process, and there is no likelihood of the petitioners
losing their post or position or salary in any manner whatsoever by the impugned
recruitment process. These petitions are just an unholy attempt by the petitioners to
snatch and win the regular posts, which are in a separate cadre and establishment,
totally different from the contractual posts on which the petitioners are working.
12. It is argued that in various departments and organizations of the State
Government like in M.P. Police Housing Corporation, separate posts are
sanctioned to be filled up by regular and contractual employees and the petitioners,
who are working in M.P. Police Housing Corporation are working against the
sanctioned contractual posts on contractual basis. There are different regular posts
on which recruitment is being carried out.
13. However, in the cases of those petitioners who are working in
MGNREGS, they are working in an organization, which is a project funded by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

12
Central Government and there are no regular posts in that project at all. The
petitioners are seeking regularization in other different Departments, because no
regular posts have been advertised in MGNREGS as no regular posts exist. The
petitioners who are working in MGNREGA cannot as of right seek regularization
in other different departments and organizations in which they are not working.
14. It is also argued that the State Government has issued a policy dated
05.06.2018 as per which the State Government has taken a decision to convert
contractual posts into regular posts in a phased manner and has taken a decision
that every time whenever regular posts are advertised, then 20% of the advertised
regular posts would be reserved for those employees, who are working on
contractual basis in any department or organization or project of the State
Government. For example, a contractual Sub Engineer working in MGNREGS
may get regular appointment in PWD or Water resources Department, or so on. It
is argued that the petitioners are working in a separate setup of contractual posts,
and the State Government vide policy dated 05.06.2018 has taken a decision to
convert the contractual posts into regular posts in a phased manner. The impugned
amendment notification dated 01.02.2020 is in fact in accordance with the terms
and conditions of policy dated 05.06.2018. It is argued that the petitioners are only
reading Clause 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the policy dated 05.06.2018, but are not reading
Clause 1.4 of the policy dated 05.06.2018. It is argued that as per the policy dated
05.06.2018, there is a separate quota of 20% regular posts, which has been set
apart for contractual employees, who are working in any Department or project or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

13
Undertaking of the State Government. The petitioners would compete against
contractual employees and would not compete against fresh graduates to the extent
of 20% quota. Not only this, but relaxation in age limit has also been provided up
to the number of years put in as contractual employees, subject to maximum of 55
years of age. It is argued that the amendment notification dated 01.02.2020 is in
accordance with the policy dated 05.06.2018. However, the petitioners are reading
clauses of the policy dated 05.06.2018 in selective manner and not in
comprehensive manner, which they cannot be permitted to do.
15. It is further argued that now the policy dated 05.06.2018 has been
superseded by a modified policy dated 22.07.2023 as per which in every regular
recruitment, now 50% posts are set apart for those contractual employees, who
have put in 5 years of service on contract basis in any Department of the State.
Therefore, the quota of 20% has now been increased to 50%. The State
Government needs experienced persons like the petitioners on regular posts, so
also freshers who will bring in freshness and dash in the Organisation. By framing
the policies dated 05.06.2018 and 22.07.2023 so also the amended rules vide
notification dated 01.02.2020, the State Government has only tried to strike a
balance between experienced persons and fresh blood, both of which are necessary
in the interest of administration and there is nothing illegal, arbitrary, malicious or
vindictive in the action of the State Government, which is fully legal, valid, proper
and in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

14
16. It is further argued that no employee has a vested right of regularization.
Regularization can only be sought by a person, who is irregularly appointed, i.e. by
not following the regular recruitment process, though he may be having requisite
qualification and eligibility for appointment. The petitioners were not irregularly
appointed, but they were validly appointed on sanctioned posts, which were
contractual in nature, by following some recruitment process. It is argued that the
case of petitioners themselves is that they were appointed by following recruitment
process. Therefore, they are not irregular appointees, though they may not have
been appointed on regular posts, but having been appointed on contractual posts,
but they cannot say that they are to be regularized as such. There can be no right
for regularization of a person, who is validly appointed as contractual employee on
a contractual post. A scheme has been set up by the State Government for
conversion of such contractual posts into regular posts in phased manner, which is
fair and valid.
17. This Court has heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length and
perused the record.
18. In this batch of petitions, challenges is made to the recruitment
advertisement dated 27.07.2022 along with its corrigendum, whereby some more
Departments have been added to the said recruitment advertisement by the
petitioners who were working on contractual basis either in MGNREGS or in MP
Police Housing Corporation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

15
19. Along with the challenge to advertisement, in some of the petitions,
challenge is also made to newly inserted Rule 11(8) of Rules of 1999, whereby a
provision has been carved out by the State Government to reserve 20% vacancies
of direct recruitment for employees working in departments/bodies on contract
basis who have completed minimum 5 years of service on contractual post. It is
further provided to grant exemption in upper age limit up to such period for which
service has been rendered by such employees on contractual post, subject to
maximum of 55 years of age on the date prescribed in the advertisement issued for
recruitment.
20. The petitioners are not satisfied with the aforesaid relaxation carved out
under the amendment in the rules, and it is their case that after considering 100%
of regular posts for regularization of contractual employees, then remainder posts
be considered for direct recruitment, if such posts remain vacant.
21. The petitioners have mounted the challenge on two grounds: firstly, that
the amendment in the recruitment notice based on the amendment that comprises
similar terms and conditions as in the recruitment notice, are contrary to the
promise given to the petitioners vide policy dated 05.06.2018 framed by the State
Government for defining service conditions of contractual employees and
guaranteeing some career progression to contractual employees working in the
departments and instrumentalities of State Government or its projects. The
impugned amendment is as under—
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

16
"(8). 20 percent posts in vacancies available for the direct recruitment
shall be reserved for such employees working in the
Departments/Bodies on Contract basis and have completed minimum
five years of service on contract post, but after being appointed by
taking benefit of reservation mentioned above, there shall be no
eligibility for this benefit again. Exemption in upper age limit shall be
allowed up to such period as the service has been rendered by such
candidate working on contract, but the upper age limit including the
exemption, shall not be more than 55 years on the date prescribed in
advertisement issued for the recruitment for the post
.
22. The said amendment has been projected to be contrary to the policy
dated 05.06.2018 and petitioners have vehemently relied on clause 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3
of the aforesaid policy. However, the petitioners have omitted to point out to
clause 1.4 and 1.11 of the same policy, which contains the provision similar to the
provision contained in the amendment notification dated 01.02. 2020. The relevant
clauses 1.1 to 1.4 and 1.11 of the policy dated 05.06.2018 are as under:-
“1.1 रा Ǜ शासनकेिविभ Ʉ िवभागोंकेअनुमोिदत Ů शासिनकसेटअपम Ő संिवदा

,
परिनयु İƅ केिलएजोपदिच İɎ तह œ उ ɎŐ चरणब Ƞ तरीकेसेिनयिमतपदोंम Ő प į रवित Ŋ त
िकयाजाए।िवषयिवशेष ǒ ता , यो ƶ ताएवंअनुभवअथवाऐसीकोईिविश ʼ प į र İ˕ ितयोंम Ő
संिवदापरिनयु ƅ करनेकेपद ˢ ीकृतिकएजाएंगे।िवभागरेसीिविश ʼ प į र İ˕ ितयोंका
उ ʟ ेखकरते Š एसंिवदािनयु İƅ केपदोंकोिनिम Ŋ तकरनेअथवाउ ɎŐ िनरंतररखनेका
Ůˑ ावसामा Ɋ Ů शासनिवभागको Ůˑ ुतकरउसपरअिभमत Ů ा ɑ करेगातदोपरांत
िवभागसम ɋ यम Ő ऐसे Ůˑ ावपरयथोिचतआदेश Ů ा ɑ करेगा।
1.2
िवभागजहाँआव ʴ कहोआउट सोस Ŋ केमा ȯ मसे ˢ ीकृतसेटअपकेअनुसार
-
से ũ ाएं Ů ा ɑ करनेकेिलए ˢ तं ũ होगा।
1.3 , ,
सम ˑ िवभाग ˢ ीकृतसंिवदाकेपदोंको Ů थम ि Ȫ तीय तृतीयतथाचतुथ Ŋ ŵ ेणी

म Ő वग Ŏ कृतकर Ő गे।जहाँऐसावग Ŏ करणकरनेम Ő किठनाईहोवहाँसामा Ɋ Ů शासनिवभाग
कािनण Ŋ य ŵ ेणीकेस ɾɀ म Ő अंितमहोगा। ŵ ेणीकावग Ŏ करणमु ƥ तःसंिवदावेतनके
आधारपरिकयाजाएगा।
1.4 Ůȑ ेकिवभागकेभत Ŏ िकएजानेवालेपदोंम 20 Ő Ů ितशतपदसंिवदापरिनयु ƅ
अिधका į रयों कम Ŋ चा į रयोंके िलएआरि Ɨ तरह Ő गे , िक ȶ ुइसनीितके अतंग Ŋ तआर ƗƗ ण
/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

17
सुिवधाकाएकबारलाभलेकरिनयु İƅ Ů ा ɑ करलेने joining) उपरांतपुनःलाभकी
(

पा ũ तानहींहोगी।
1.11 संिवदासेवकएकअथवाउससेअिधक ŵ ेणीकेसंिवदापदोंपरिनयु ƅ रहाहो
सकताहै।ऐसी İ˕ ितम Ő िजस ŵ ेणीकेिनयिमतपदपरवहिनयु İƅ काआवेदनकरताहै

उसकेसमक Ɨ एवंउ DŽ तर ŵ ेणीकेसंिवदापदपरवहिजतनेवष Ŋ काय Ŋ रतरहाउतनेवष Ŋ की
छूटउसेिनधा Ŋį रतअिधकतमआयुसीमाम Ő िमलेगी।यहछूटसिहतअिधकतमआयुआवेदन
िदनांकअथवापदकीभत Ŏ केिलएजारीिव ǒİɑ म Ő िनधा Ŋį रतिदनांकको 55 वष Ŋ सेअिधक
नहींहोगी। ”
23. The amendment notification dated 01.02.2020, vires whereof have been
challenged on the anvil of it being contrary to promise given to contractual
employees vide policy dated 05.06.2018, if given a comprehensive reading, is
found to contain the similar provisions as are provided in the police dated
05.6.2018.
24. The petitioners in these cases were appointed either in MP Police
Housing Corporation or in MGNREGA as contractual employees after following
selection process. It was the specific contention of the petitioners that they were
appointed by following selection process and they are not back door appointees.
They were appointed either on competitive basis or on merit basis after issuance of
advertisement and carrying out the selection process as contemplated in the said
advertisements.
25. The petitioners in some of the cases have placed on record the
advertisements in response to which they were appointed, and these
advertisements indicate that the petitioners were appointed on the sanctioned and
vacant contractual posts. The petitioners are not irregularly appointed employees
who were appointed without following selection process on daily rated basis or on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

18
ad-hoc basis. The petitioners, on the contrary, were appointed on the sanctioned
vacant contractual posts which are different from the posts in regular
establishment.
26. In MP Police Housing Corporation, there are separate posts earmarked
for contractual and regular employees, while in MGNREGS, since it is a project
funded by the Central Government, all the posts therein are contractual posts, and
no regular posts have been sanctioned in the said organization. Therefore, the
petitioners working in MGNREGS were appointed on such posts which are
contractual in nature, and there is absence of any regular post of Sub-Engineer in
MGNREGS project. The petitioners who were working in MGNREGS are in fact
seeking regularization as of right in other Departments and organizations and not
in the Department or organization wherein they are working, which in itself is
something unknown to service jurisprudence. Such a assertion of the petitioners
who were working in MGNREGS is utterly misconstrued because no employee
can argue that he has a right of regularization in a Department or organization
where he is not working. He may stake claim to regularization only in the
Department wherein he is working, but not in any other department.
27. By the policy decision dated 05.06.2018, the State Government has
taken a decision to convert in a phased manner all the contractual posts in various
departments and organizations into regular posts by carving out 20% of vacancies
in each advertisement for such contractual employees.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

19
28. The aforesaid quota of 20% given in each recruitment would ensure that
the State Government would get some fresh blood in its organizations and its
Departments and instrumentalities, whereas there would be reasonable chances of
the contractual employees getting a post in regular establishment. This will be by
phased conversion of contractual posts in regular posts.
29. The petitioners had a better case if had been the case wherein all the
contractual posts had been converted into regular posts and then they had been
advertised from open market. It is not so, and the contractual posts on which the
petitioners are working are standing intact and they are not in any danger at all.
The service conditions of the petitioners on contractual posts are not being
changed to their disadvantage. What the petitioners challenge is the State
Government’s action in advertising regular posts, which has no bearing, positive or
negative, on the existing service conditions of the petitioners who are working on
altogether different contractual posts.
30. The reliance placed on Judgment of the Coordinate Division Bench in
Municipal Corporation (supra) , is utterly misplaced because in the said case the
employees were working in the Municipal Corporation and regular posts had been
advertised in the Municipal Corporation only upon filling up of entire posts in the
Corporation, the future chances of regularization would have been extinguished
forever. However, in the present case, it is not so, because as per scheme of the
State Government as contained in policy dated 05.06.2018 as well as the
amendment notification dated 01.02.2020 in the rules of 1999, which find place in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

20
the recruitment notice dated 22.07.2022, it is clear that the petitioners would be
continuously considered in any Department or instrumentality of the State on
continuous basis, subject to 20% quota in each recruitment.
31. For the sake of repetition, we may again repeat that the present case is
not a case of regularization wherein upon appointment of regular employees being
fresh open-market candidates, the employees working on daily-rated basis may
face negative effect or impact on their service conditions. It is a case where the
petitioners are working in totally different parallel setup, i.e. contractual setup,
whereas the posts advertised are not the posts against which the petitioners are
working, but are different posts. For this reason also, no leverage can be made by
the petitioners by relying on judgment of the Coordinate Bench in case of
Municipal Corporation, (supra).
32. In the case of Uma Devi (supra) , it has been held by the Constitution
Bench that it is not open for the Courts to halt regular recruitment at the instance of
casual, temporary or ad-hoc employees, who do not acquire any vested right on
regular posts. It has been held therein that the rights of numerous cannot be
scuttled by the Court just to protect the few who are before the Court. The Courts
should act as guardian sentinels to ensure equality of protection. Even the doctrine
of legitimate expectation has been discarded to be having any application in such
cases. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held therein as under :-
4. But, sometimes this process is not adhered to and the constitutional
scheme of public employment is bypassed. The Union, the States, their
departments and instrumentalities have resorted to irregular
appointments, especially in the lower rungs of the service, without
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

21
reference to the duty to ensure a proper appointment procedure
through the Public Service Commissions or otherwise as per the rules
adopted and to permit these irregular appointees or those appointed
on contract or on daily wages, to continue year after year, thus,
keeping out those who are qualified to apply for the post concerned
and depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the post. It has
also led to persons who get employed, without the following of a
regular procedure or even through the backdoor or on daily wages,
approaching the courts, seeking directions to make them permanent in
their posts and to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned.
The courts have not always kept the legal aspects in mind and have
occasionally even stayed the regular process of employment being set
in motion and in some cases, even directed that these illegal,
irregular or improper entrants be absorbed into service. A class of
employment which can only be called “litigious employment”, has
risen like a phoenix seriously impairing the constitutional scheme.
Such orders are passed apparently in exercise of the wide powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution. Whether the wide powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution are intended to be used for a purpose
certain to defeat the concept of social justice and equal opportunity
for all, subject to affirmative action in the matter of public
employment as recognised by our Constitution, has to be seriously
pondered over. It is time, that the courts desist from issuing orders
preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such
persons and from issuing directions for continuance of those who
have not secured regular appointments as per procedure established.
The passing of orders for continuance tends to defeat the very
constitutional scheme of public employment. It has to be emphasised
that this is not the role envisaged for the High Courts in the scheme of
things and their wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are
not intended to be used for the purpose of perpetuating illegalities,
irregularities or improprieties or for scuttling the whole scheme of
public employment. Its role as the sentinel and as the guardian of
equal rights protection should not be forgotten.
xx xx xx
43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public
employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of
law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be
disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or
in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the
requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution.
Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this
Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless
the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

22
competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any
right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the
appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an
engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same
would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary
employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his
term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a
temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time
beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be
absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the
strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not
made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the
relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular
recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of
employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the
very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High
Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not
ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or
permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made
regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because
an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court,
which we have described as “litigious employment” in the earlier
part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be
absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the
High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since,
after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to
relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner
that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim
direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular
procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying
an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in
ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic
arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend
themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the
constitutional and statutory mandates.
44. The concept of “equal pay for equal work” is different from the
concept of conferring permanency on those who have been appointed
on ad hoc basis, temporary basis, or based on no process of selection
as envisaged by the rules. This Court has in various decisions applied
the principle of equal pay for equal work and has laid down the
parameters for the application of that principle. The decisions are
rested on the concept of equality enshrined in our Constitution in the
light of the directive principles in that behalf. But the acceptance of
that principle cannot lead to a position where the court could direct
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

23
that appointments made without following the due procedure
established by law, be deemed permanent or issue directions to treat
them as permanent. Doing so, would be negation of the principle of
equality of opportunity. The power to make an order as is necessary
for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before this
Court, would not normally be used for giving the go-by to the
procedure established by law in the matter of public employment.
Take the situation arising in the cases before us from the State of
Karnataka. Therein, after Dharwad decision [(1990) 2 SCC 396 :
1990 SCC (L&S) 274 : (1990) 12 ATC 902 : (1990) 1 SCR 544] the
Government had issued repeated directions and mandatory orders
that no temporary or ad hoc employment or engagement be given.
Some of the authorities and departments had ignored those directions
or defied those directions and had continued to give employment,
specifically interdicted by the orders issued by the executive. Some of
the appointing officers have even been punished for their defiance. It
would not be just or proper to pass an order in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution or in exercise of power
under Article 142 of the Constitution permitting those persons
engaged, to be absorbed or to be made permanent, based on their
appointments or engagements. Complete justice would be justice
according to law and though it would be open to this Court to mould
the relief, this Court would not grant a relief which would amount to
perpetuating an illegality.
45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be
regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that
the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for
a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an
engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the
nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes.
It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain—not at arm's
length—since he might have been searching for some employment so
as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that
ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the
constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a
person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be
directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating
another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the
court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the
ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that
too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A
total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not
possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would
only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

24
contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment
when securing of such employment brings at least some succour to
them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search
of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or
temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an
employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis
that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and
the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while
accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of
his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of
the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is
temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered
to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure
established, for making regular appointments to available posts in the
services of the State. The argument that since one has been working
for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even
though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first
took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the
procedure established by law for public employment and would have
to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality
of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
46. Learned Senior Counsel for some of the respondents argued that
on the basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the employees,
especially of the Commercial Taxes Department, should be directed to
be regularised since the decisions in Dharwad [(1990) 2 SCC 396 :
1990 SCC (L&S) 274 : (1990) 12 ATC 902 : (1990) 1 SCR 544] ,
Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 825 : (1992) 21
ATC 403 : (1992) 3 SCR 826] , Jacob [Jacob M. Puthuparambil v.
Kerala Water Authority, (1991) 1 SCC 28 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 25 :
(1991) 15 ATC 697] and Gujarat Agricultural University [Gujarat
Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar, (2001) 3 SCC 574 :
2001 SCC (L&S) 613] and the like, have given rise to an expectation
in them that their services would also be regularised. The doctrine
can be invoked if the decisions of the administrative authority affect
the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which
either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to
enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to
continue to do until there have been communicated to him some
rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an
opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the
decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him
first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they
should not be withdrawn. [See Lord Diplock in Council for Civil
Services Union v. Minister of Civil Service [1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

25
All ER 935 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL)] , National Buildings
Construction Corpn. v. S. Raghunathan [(1998) 7 SCC 66 : 1998 SCC
(L&S) 1770] and Chanchal Goyal (Dr.) v. State of Rajasthan [(2003)
3 SCC 485 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 322] .] There is no case that any
assurance was given by the Government or the department concerned
while making the appointment on daily wages that the status
conferred on him will not be withdrawn until some rational reason
comes into existence for withdrawing it. The very engagement was
against the constitutional scheme. Though, the Commissioner of the
Commercial Taxes Department sought to get the appointments made
permanent, there is no case that at the time of appointment any
promise was held out. No such promise could also have been held out
in view of the circulars and directives issued by the Government after
Dharwad decision [(1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 274 : (1990)
12 ATC 902 : (1990) 1 SCR 544] . Though, there is a case that the
State had made regularisations in the past of similarly situated
employees, the fact remains that such regularisations were done only
pursuant to judicial directions, either of the Administrative Tribunal
or of the High Court and in some cases by this Court. Moreover, the
invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot enable the
employees to claim that they must be made permanent or they must be
regularised in the service though they had not been selected in terms
of the rules for appointment. The fact that in certain cases the court
had directed regularisation of the employees involved in those cases
cannot be made use of to found a claim based on legitimate
expectation. The argument if accepted would also run counter to the
constitutional mandate. The argument in that behalf has therefore to
be rejected.
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 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

26
48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus
appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated.
It is stated that the State has treated the employees unfairly by
employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work
from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly
recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar
work. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the
department concerned on a wage that was made known to them.
There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those
who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they
cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have
been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right
can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such
employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited
candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that
the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal
work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed
on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that
they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this
Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular
appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent
with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The
right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on
daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with
those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals
as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed
in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the
relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled.
49. It is contended that the State action in not regularising the
employees was not fair within the framework of the rule of law. The
rule of law compels the State to make appointments as envisaged by
the Constitution and in the manner we have indicated earlier. In most
of these cases, no doubt, the employees had worked for some length of
time but this has also been brought about by the pendency of
proceedings in tribunals and courts initiated at the instance of the
employees. Moreover, accepting an argument of this nature would
mean that the State would be permitted to perpetuate an illegality in
the matter of public employment and that would be a negation of the
constitutional scheme adopted by us, the people of India. It is
therefore not possible to accept the argument that there must be a
direction to make permanent all the persons employed on daily
wages. When the court is approached for relief by way of a writ, the
court has necessarily to ask itself whether the person before it had
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

27
any legal right to be enforced. Considered in the light of the very
clear constitutional scheme, it cannot be said that the employees have
been able to establish a legal right to be made permanent even though
they have never been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in
adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
33. So far as reliance in the case of Jaggo (supra) is concerned, the
employees therein had been terminated and they were working as maalis/khalasis.
In the present case, there is no negative impact on service conditions of the
petitioners by the impugned recruitment process, and the posts are engineering
posts on which the requirement of the organization to have fresh talent, so also the
experienced candidates and the need to strike a balance between the two cannot be
faulted with.
34. The State Government as a policy has provided that that that in each
regular recruitment in any department or instrumentality, the employees working
on contractual basis in any other department or instrumentality would be entitled to
a quota of 20%. Since the petitioners would compete in this quota of 20% only in
this quota of 20%, therefore their competition would not be against fresh
graduates, but would be against persons like them who are disconnected with
academics for a long time. The petitioners in addition, would be at liberty to
compete against open-market candidates also, subject to requisite age limit for
open recruitment, but so far as the quota of 20% is concerned, they would compete
only against their counterparts who are contractual employees and who would be
having benefit of upper age limit of number of years rendered as contractual
employees, subject to maximum of 55 years of age.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

28
35. 20. In State of Punjab and others Vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and
others (1998) 4 SCC 117 , the Supreme Court has held that a judicial review in
policy matter which is wisdom of the policy maker, cannot be judicially
scrutinized though the Court can consider whether the policy is arbitrary or
violative of law. It was held as under :-
“25. .......... so far as questioning the validity of governmental policy
is concerned in our view it is not normally within the domain of any
court, to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to scrutinize it and
test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition for the
purpose of varying, modifying or annulling it, based on howsoever
sound and good reasoning, except where it is arbitrary or violative of
any constitutional, statutory or any other provision of law. When
Government forms its policy, it is based on a number of circumstances
on facts, law including constraints based on its resources. It is also
based on expert opinion. It would be dangerous if court is asked to
test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on
facts set out on affidavits. The court would dissuade itself from
entering into this realm which belongs to the executive. It is within
this matrix that it is to be seen whether the new policy violates Article
21 when it restricts reimbursement on account of its financial
constraints”
36. The same principle has been reiterated in the case of State of Jharkhand
and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Dangi (2011) 13 SCC 383 and it has been held as
under :-
“17. ……… In framing of the policy, various inputs are required and
it is neither desirable nor advisable for a court of law to direct or
summarise the Government to adopt a particular policy which it
deems fit or proper. It is well settled that the State Government must
have liberty and freedom in framing policy. Further, it also cannot be
denied that the courts are illequipped to deal with competing claims
and conflicting interests. Often, the courts do not have the satisfactory
and effective means to decide which alternative, out of the many
competing ones, is the best in the circumstances of the case.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

29
37. In the case of Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and
General Subordinate Services Association and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
and others, (1980) 3 SCC 97 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in
the matter of policy decision regarding service conditions, the Courts cannot
expect mathematical precision in administrative actions because that is not
possible and Courts should not analyze minute administrative details. What is
important is to know is whether mala fides, irrational and extraneous factors have
vitiated and fouled the policy decision.
38. Reliance was also placed by the petitioners on the judgment in the case
of Dharam Singh (supra) which is also the case of class-IV employees. However,
in the said case, no structured mechanism had been set in place by the State
Government to consider such employees against regular posts in a phased manner.
39. In the present case, the State Government indeed has framed a policy
dated 05.06.2018 to convert contractual posts into regular posts in a phased
manner by setting apart a quota of 20% regular posts exclusively for contractual
employees, which is found to be a reasonable and just decision taken by the State
Government. This decision would ensure a fair balance of fresh blood, so also
experienced employees in the engineering posts of the State Government, which is
not found to be disproportionate or arbitrary or irrational, not is found to be
violative of any constitutional right of the petitioners.
40. In K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1,
the Constitutional Bench laid down broad parameters for testing an statute on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

30
anvil of test of proportionality that is as under :-
638. The concerns expressed on behalf of the petitioners arising from
the possibility of the State infringing the right to privacy can be met
by the test suggested for limiting the discretion of the State:
(i) The action must be sanctioned by law;
(ii) The proposed action must be necessary in a democratic
society for a legitimate aim;
(iii) The extent of such interference must be proportionate to
the need for such interference;
(iv) There must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such
interference.”
41. As already noted by us above, we do not find any disproportionality in
the impugned amendment in the Rules of 1999, nor in the action of the
respondents in issuing the impugned recruitment notification. The respondents
have neither acted illegally, nor the purpose is undemocratic or illegal, for the
reasons recorded by us above.
42. So far as the doctrine of legitimate expectation as is raised before this
court is concerned, complete answer is to be found in the case of Uma Devi
(supra) . Even if it is argued that there is some right flowing from the cases of
Jaggo (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra) , it would at best be an expectation to be
considered as per the policy framed by the State Government for this purpose. The
State has duly framed a policy that provides for a fair proportion of posts to be
converted from Contractual to regular ones, and while also ensuring inflow of
freshers. No legitimate expectation has been created in favor of the petitioners to
demand en-bloc absorption on all regular posts. The appointment orders duly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

31
mentioned that the petitioners are being appointed on contractual posts and would
not seek conversion on regular posts. No doubt, the State can always frame a
policy at a later stage, and indeed the State Government has framed a policy dated
05.06.2018 to convert contractual posts into regular posts in phased manner as paid
down in para 1.4 thereof. The petitioners cannot claim any legitimate expectation
by demanding that the contractual employees be allowed to occupy all the regular
posts in en-bloc one go, which is not found to be lawful demand or expectation of
the petitioners.
43. Therefore, this court is unable to hold that the amendment notification
dated 01.02. 2020 as ultra vires any constitutional or legal provision or violative of
legitimate expectations of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever. The
petitioners may compete in their quota of 20% set apart for contractual employees
in every recruitment. It has duly been placed on record that this quota of 20% has
been meticulously followed by the State Government, and nothing has been placed
on record that this quota of 20% has not been followed by the State Government.
44. We have further been informed that the quota of 20% has been enhanced
to 50% vide subsequent order dated 22.07.2023 by the State Government. We have
further been informed that the recent advertisement which has been issued in the
year 2026 for sub-engineers, draftsmen and equivalent posts indeed contains 50%
quota for contractual employees in the regular recruitment.
45. This court does not find violation of any of the vested rights of the
petitioners in the aforesaid action of the State Government. This court does not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM

32
find any good ground to interfere in the impugned recruitment notice, so also does
not find any ground to interfere to hold the amendment notification dated 01.02.
2020 to be ultra vires of any legal or constitutional provisions. Petitioners are free
to participate in the recruitment process in the quota of 20% or 50%, as the case
may be, that has been set apart for contractual employees with relexation of age
limit. Subject to age limit for open recruitment, they are also free to compete
against open category.
46. Therefore, in view of above reasons, the petitions fail and are
dismissed.
(ALPESH Y. KOGJE) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
rj/Mishra
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 11/2/2026
7:00:29 PM