Authorities directed to consider regularization by notionally reckoning the initial officiating appointment before the cutoff date.

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Sweeper at Markasa PHC by office order dated 29 December 2006 against the leave vacancy of her father, who had availed 90 days’ earned leave.

After her father’s death, she was permitted to officiate against the post on a regular scale by order dated 4 March 2009.

The District Medical and Health Officer thereafter issued an order dated 24 November 2009 purporting to regularize her services on compassionate grounds.

However, official records and a communication dated 8 October 2025 continued to describe her appointment as adhoc.

The State respondents contended that the DMHO lacked competence to grant regularization and that the petitioner’s appointment, treated as commencing on 4 March 2009, fell after the Cabinet-prescribed cutoff date of 31 December 2007 for regularization of adhoc employees.

The petitioner accordingly sought regularization of her service.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization on the basis of her initial appointment and continuous service from 29 December 2006, notwithstanding the official recording of her adhoc appointment from 4 March 2009.

Whether the petitioner’s service could be considered for regularization by notionally treating 29 December 2006 as the relevant date, despite the alleged lack of competence of the DMHO to regularize her services and the 31 December 2007 cutoff date.

The Court applied the State Cabinet’s regularization policy/decision fixing 31 December 2007 as the cutoff date for regularization of adhoc employees.

It also applied the administrative-law principle that an order of regularization issued by an authority lacking the requisite competence is legally ineffective or non est.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that, while the petitioner might not fall within the existing regularization exercise on the basis of the officially recorded date of appointment, the competent authorities could consider her claim by taking into account the earlier date from which she had in fact been officiating.

The Court accepted that the petitioner had served against the same post from 29 December 2006 and was subsequently permitted to officiate on a regular scale from 4 March 2009.

It also recognized that the DMHO’s purported regularization order dated 24 November 2009 could not, by itself, confer a right because the DMHO was allegedly not the competent authority to grant regularization.

At the same time, the Court noted that treating 4 March 2009 as the commencement of her adhoc service placed her outside the Cabinet’s 31 December 2007 cutoff.

Balancing these considerations, the Court did not itself direct regularization but held that the respondents ought to reconsider the petitioner’s claim by notionally taking her initial officiating date of 29 December 2006 into account.

The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s prayer for regularization, including by taking into consideration her initial date of officiating appointment, namely 29 December 2006, within six months from the date of the judgment.

The matter was accordingly closed and disposed of.