Ad hoc service dehors recruitment rules creates no vested right to regularization regardless of duration.

The applicant was engaged as a Training Substitute Fisheries Guard in the Fisheries Department, Kupwara, in 1999

His services were utilized through various continuation orders for approximately a decade, and he received recommendations for regularization from departmental authorities between 2006 and 2008

Following a High Court direction in SWP No. 2625/2011 to consider his claim, the respondents issued Fisheries Order No. 423 of 2012 dated 30.03.2012, rejecting his regularization

The respondents contended that the applicant was a "training substitute"—a tenure arrangement ending upon the return of trainee officials—and that his services ceased after 2008, with wages paid only up to October 2010 per court orders

The applicant challenged this rejection, asserting continuous service and discrimination relative to similarly situated employees

1. Whether the action of the respondents in not recognizing the applicant’s continuous service for regularization is arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India

2. Whether an employee engaged as a training substitute on a need-based basis for a decade acquires a vested right to regularization

The Tribunal applied the landmark ruling in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which established that regularization of employees engaged dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment is impermissible, except for a one-time window for those serving 10+ years in sanctioned posts without court intervention

It further relied on State of Karnataka v. M. L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 regarding the requirement of continuous engagement

The Tribunal invoked Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1 to emphasize that regularization must align with statutory recruitment rules

Additionally, the principles from State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh (2009) 5 SCC 65 and UOI v. Kartick Chandra Mondal (2010) 2 SCC 422 were applied to clarify that the doctrine of "negative equality" cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality

The Tribunal reasoned that regularization is not a matter of right but an equitable relief subject to strict compliance with recruitment procedures under Articles 14 and 16

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove continuous service up to the filing of the petition in 2012; attendance records only established service until October 2010

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ position that the employer-employee relationship had ceased and that the applicant's engagement was purely tenure-based and need-based

It was observed that the Fisheries (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules mandate Class-IV posts be filled via direct recruitment; thus, any engagement dehors these rules cannot be regularized as a matter of course

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the plea of "legitimate expectation" and "discrimination," holding that an illegality committed in favor of another cannot be a ground for seeking similar relief

The claim was found to be non-maintainable under the prevailing statutory framework and established judicial precedents

Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and all interim directions were vacated