After 31 Years’ Service, Mangalore University Attender Gets Regularisation Claim Reconsidered; Outsourcing Alone Cannot Bar Consideration

The petitioner, an Attender at Mangalore University, claimed that he had been engaged from 2 November 1995 and had continued working in different capacities, first on a UGC project, then under a Self-Financing Scheme, and later through an outsourcing arrangement.

The University rejected his request for regularization, stating that his services were outsourced and that appointments were subject to the applicable Cadre and Recruitment Rules and the Karnataka State Universities Act.

The petitioner challenged those endorsements under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and sought regularization with consequential benefits.

The High Court noted the University’s admission that the petitioner had continued working for approximately 31 years.

The Court relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, which cautioned against using temporary or outsourced arrangements to perpetuate insecurity or evade obligations where work is essential and continuing.

It also relied on Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, which reiterated that outsourcing cannot be used as a shield to perpetuate precarious employment or sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is perennial.

The Court noted that applicable statutes and recruitment rules, and any required State Government approval, remained relevant to the consideration of regularization.

The University’s own account showed continuous engagement of the petitioner from 1995, albeit under different arrangements, and the Court found that he had continued working for about 31 years.

Applying Jaggo and Dharam Singh, the Court held that outsourcing alone could not justify rejecting consideration of regularization.

It did not determine that the petitioner was automatically entitled to regularization; rather, it directed the University to assess the relevant criteria, prepare an appropriate report, and seek Government approval where required.

It directed the University and the State Government to consider the petitioner’s case for regularization and pass appropriate orders within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

Any practical difficulty requiring more time was to be brought before the Court by an application for extension.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.