A prior conscious decision on contractual status renders reconsideration under Uma Devi an empty formality.

The respondents had been engaged on a contractual basis for the preservation and conservation of archaeological sites situated in areas likely to be submerged under the Narmada Valley Project.

The State Cabinet considered their service status in March 2015, and the State Government thereafter issued an order dated 21 May 2015 treating them as contractual employees on an “As is Where Is” basis.

The respondents subsequently filed Writ Petition No. 13732 of 2021.

By order dated 26 April 2024, the writ court directed the authorities to consider their case in light of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.

The State preferred the present writ appeal with a delay of approximately 404 days and sought condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, under which delay may be condoned upon the applicant establishing sufficient cause.

In assessing sufficient cause, the Court relied on the principles referred to in Motilal Songara v. Prem Prakash alias Pappu, (2013) 9 SCC 199; Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 531; and Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501.

On the substantive issue, the Court applied Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, which disapproves regularisation of illegal appointments and permits consideration only in cases involving irregular appointments made through the prescribed legal process.

The Court further applied the principle that a prior conscious administrative decision, made after consideration of the relevant circumstances, should not be subjected to an empty or redundant reconsideration exercise.

The Court found sufficient cause for the delay because the State had obtained legal opinions, processed the matter through the relevant departments, and thereafter prepared and filed the appeal; accordingly, the delay was condoned.

On the merits, the Court observed that the writ court had passed its order without having before it the Cabinet Note and the State’s order dated 21 May 2015, which disclosed that the respondents’ appointments were contractual, temporary, and linked to a specific project concerning archaeological sites facing submergence.

Since the State had already consciously determined their status on a contractual “As is Where Is” basis, directing a fresh consideration under Umadevi would serve no meaningful purpose and could create complications.

Further, the project-based nature of the appointments and the absence of a legal basis for treating them as permanent meant that the respondents could not claim regularisation merely on the basis of their contractual engagement.

On admission and interim relief, the Court held that the writ court’s direction dated 26 April 2024 was unsustainable because the respondents’ status had already been determined by the State through the Cabinet decision and order dated 21 May 2015.

The impugned order in Writ Petition No. 13732 of 2021 was therefore set aside, and the writ appeal was allowed.