Absence of Appointment Against Sanctioned Post or Under Rules Precludes Claims for Regularization of Daily Wagers

Eight petitioners, who worked as daily wagers/temporary assistants/Class-IV employees under various branches of the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) in Muzaffarpur and Patna, sought regularization of their services

They challenged a letter dated 04.02.2020 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager, which terminated all such temporary arrangements/outsourcing following the appointment of newly recruited regular Assistants

Petitioners 1, 2, and 5 had worked for over five years prior to 18.01.2011, while Petitioners 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 were engaged after that date via outsourcing

The petitioners relied on various Supreme Court and High Court precedents regarding the absorption of temporary staff

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization of their services in the Corporation despite not being appointed against sanctioned posts through a formal selection process?

2. Whether the termination of temporary/outsourced arrangements via the letter dated 04.02.2020 was arbitrary or illegal given the recruitment of regular staff?

The Court primarily applied the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), which established that temporary or daily-wage employees have no vested right to regularization if they were not appointed against sanctioned posts via a regular recruitment process

The Court also referenced the specific scheme formulated by the LIC under the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 953-968 of 2005 (LIC v. D.V. Anil Kumar), which allowed for a "one-time" limited examination for absorption of eligible temporary employees working for five years as of 18.01.2011

The Court found that Petitioners 1, 2, and 5, despite being eligible for the one-time absorption scheme, failed to apply or participate in the mandatory limited examination, thereby forfeiting their claim

For the remaining petitioners (3, 4, 6, 7, and 8), the Court noted they were engaged after the 18.01.2011 cut-off date and through outsourcing agencies, rather than directly by the Corporation

The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioners (Prem Chand and Dharam Singh), noting those cases involved employees selected by formal boards or committees, whereas the current petitioners were engaged on the Branch's own volition without following statutory rules

Since the Corporation had successfully recruited regular Assistants, the Court held that the cessation of temporary arrangements was a valid administrative decision

The Court upheld the validity of the letter dated 04.02.2020. However, it granted a limited liberty: if the Corporation issues fresh advertisements in the future and the petitioners meet the eligibility criteria, their cases may be considered for recruitment/absorption in accordance with the prevailing rules and schemes