Ad-hoc services followed by regularization must be counted for seniority when initial appointment followed a selection process.

The petitioners, qualified Pharmacists, were appointed on an ad hoc basis in 1999.

They served continuously for 15 years until 2014, when they were disengaged following the commencement of the Odisha Group-‘C’ and Group-‘D’ (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013.

The State Administrative Tribunal previously directed their regularization in 2017, a decision upheld by the High Court in 2018.

Consequently, the State regularized the petitioners' services effective from November 15, 2018.

The petitioners filed representations seeking retrospective regularization from their initial date of appointment (1999) and seniority over candidates appointed in 2007, which the State rejected via orders dated July 29, 2019.

The petitioners challenged these rejection orders.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization and seniority with retrospective effect from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment in 1999.

2. Whether the break in service between 2014 and 2018 can be condoned to ensure continuity of service.

The Court relied on the principles of regularization established in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [AIR (2006) SC 1806] and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari [AIR 2010 SC 2587], which distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments.

It specifically applied Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar [(2015) 8 SCC 265], which allows for retrospective regularization where the employee possesses requisite qualifications and the initial appointment was not a "backdoor entry".

The Court also noted Jaggo v. Union of India [(2024) 12 SCR 1235] regarding weighing past service for regularization.

Conversely, the State relied on Union of India v. A.S. Pillai [(2010) 13 SCC 448] and State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal [(2011) 2 SCC 429] to argue that regularization is generally prospective and cannot disturb existing seniority.

The Court observed that the petitioners were selected through a formal interview process and possessed the necessary qualifications, thus their 1999 appointments were "irregular" but not "illegal".

Following Amarkant Rai, the Court reasoned that 15 years of unblemished service prior to the 2014 disengagement warranted counting that period for seniority and retrospective benefits.

The Court rejected the State’s argument that regularization must be strictly prospective, noting that the long duration of service and the nature of the selection process justified a retrospective application.

Regarding the four-year break (2014–2018), the Court determined it was not attributable to the petitioners and should be treated as dies non or leave to prevent a severance of service continuity.

The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to regularization from their initial dates of appointment in 1999 for the purpose of seniority.

The Court directed Opposite Party No. 1 to condone the 2014–2018 break period as dies non to preserve service continuity and to pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.