After Advertised Selection and 10 Years’ Service, Jharkhand HC Orders Regularisation of 10 Contract Assistant Engineers

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioners, appointed contractually after an advertised selection process and continuously employed for over ten years as Assistant Engineers, were entitled to regularisation.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and held that the petitioners were entitled to regularisation upon completing ten years of service.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to regularise their services with effect from the respective dates on which they completed ten years and to extend all consequential benefits available to regular employees, completing the exercise within ten weeks of receipt or production of the judgment.

Pending interlocutory applications were closed, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineers by the Jharkhand State Rural Road Development Authority (JSRRDA) following an advertisement, selection process and publication of a merit list in 2012.

¶ 3, 8–9

Their appointments, made between January and October 2013, were contractual and connected with the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY).

¶ 3, 8–9

Their services were repeatedly extended, and they continued to perform duties akin to those of regularly appointed Assistant Engineers.

¶ 5–7, 13–14

They alleged that they possessed the prescribed qualifications, had been appointed against sanctioned and vacant posts, and received revised pay benefits, including under the 7th Pay Revision Committee.

¶ 5–7, 13–14

After their 2024 representation seeking regularisation did not result in relief, they filed this writ petition.

¶ 7–12, 17–18

The respondents opposed regularisation, relying on the contractual terms, the scheme-based nature of the work and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi.

¶ 7–12, 17–18

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners, appointed contractually after an advertised selection process and continuously employed for over ten years as Assistant Engineers, were entitled to regularisation.

¶ 19, 22

ii.Whether the contractual and scheme-based nature of their appointments barred regularisation, notwithstanding their long service and duties akin to those of regular employees.

¶ 18–22

03Law Applied

The Court considered Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, which restricts regularisation of irregular appointments, alongside the Supreme Court’s decisions in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327, Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129, and Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826.

¶ 19(e)–(f), 21–22

The Court applied the principles that prolonged service, following a non-illegal entry and involving sustained duties akin to those of regular employees, may support regularisation; contractual nomenclature or a contractual term barring regularisation cannot, by itself, defeat constitutional scrutiny or justify prolonged ad hoc engagement.

¶ 19(e)–(f), 21–22

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioners had served for more than ten years after an advertised selection process, held the required qualifications, and had their services repeatedly extended; the respondents did not dispute these matters.

¶ 19(a)–(d)

It held that the fact that their work was connected to a scheme did not preclude regularisation, relying on Vinod Kumar.

¶ 19(e)

It also considered Bhola Nath, where the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment relied on by the respondents and directed regularisation of the appellants against sanctioned posts.

¶ 19(f), 21

Relying additionally on Jaggo, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ long and continued service and regular-employee-like duties outweighed the contractual label; it also noted that the petitioners’ pay had been revised and that this pleading had not been denied.

¶ 22