Absence of valid departmental engagement record and sanctioned posts precludes regularization of contractually engaged workers.

The applicants, claiming to have worked as Mazdoors/technical workers since 1991 (Applicant No. 1) and 1992 (Applicant No. 2), challenged a 2017 order rejecting their claim for regularization.

They contended they were direct employees of BSNL who were illegally shifted under a contractor system in 2006/2008 to avoid regularization.

The respondents countered that the applicants were never departmental employees, no records of direct payment (ACG-17) existed, and they were engaged through a private contractor, M/s Surakshak Security Placement.

The respondents pointed out that based on their stated ages, the applicants would have been minors (aged 11 and 14) at the alleged time of initial engagement in 1991/1992.

1. Whether the applicants established a valid employer-employee relationship with BSNL/DOT to entitle them to regularization.

2. Whether the engagement of the applicants through a contractor was a sham or if they could be treated as direct employees under the policy dated 29.09.2000.

3. Whether the principle of regularization under the Uma Devi exception is applicable to the facts of this case.

Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India regarding equality in public employment.

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi: Regularization is only permissible as a one-time measure for irregularly (not illegally) appointed persons who worked for 10 years against sanctioned posts.

State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal: Temporary or casual employees cannot claim regularization unless appointed per rules against sanctioned posts.

Official Liquidator v. Dayanand: Courts cannot direct regularization in violation of recruitment rules.

The Tribunal found the applicants failed to provide cogent evidence, such as appointment orders, muster rolls, or wage registers, to prove direct engagement by the department.

The "experience certificates" and identity cards provided were deemed insufficient as they were undated, signed by incompetent authorities, or lacked official records.

The court found the applicants' claims of starting work in 1991/1992 highly improbable due to their minor status at that time, noting that public employment requires adherence to age and eligibility rules.

The Tribunal observed that mere supervision of work by BSNL officials over contractor-supplied labor does not create a direct master-servant relationship.

Since the applicants could not prove they held sanctioned posts or were part of the recognized casual labor categories under the 2000 Policy, they failed the residency and legality tests established in Uma Devi.

The Court finalized that granting regularization without proof of lawful engagement would constitute a "backdoor entry" violating the Constitutional scheme of public recruitment. The impugned order dated 27.02.2017 was upheld as valid, and the Original Application was dismissed.