Continued service in essential roles after open selection against sanctioned vacancies mandates regularization.

The respondents, comprising Allopathic Pharmacists and Auxiliary Nurse Midwifes (ANMs), were recruited by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) through an open selection process following public advertisements.

They were appointed against sanctioned vacancies on a contract basis for six months, which were continuously renewed for several years (some since 2008).

Although they performed duties identical to regular employees and met all qualifications, their services were never regularized.

The respondents filed Original Applications (OAs) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking regularization and pay parity. On November 25, 2025, the CAT directed their regularization by following the Delhi High Court’s precedent in Pawan Sharma v. GNCTD.

The NDMC challenged these orders via the present writ petitions, arguing that the Recruitment Rules (RRs) did not envisage regularization and that they were awaiting a decision from the UPSC.

1. Whether contractual employees appointed through a regular selection process against sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization after prolonged, continuous service.

2. Whether the absence of specific provisions in Recruitment Rules or pending administrative correspondence with the UPSC can validly bar the regularization of long-serving employees.

The "essence of employment" and long-term service warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status based on principles of equity and fairness in public employment.

The ruling in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi should not be weaponized to deny regularization to "regularly" selected "irregular" (as opposed to "illegal") appointees who have served for over ten years in sanctioned posts.

The State cannot use "financial constraints" or "no vacancy" as a talisman to override the constitutional obligations of a model employer under Articles 14, 16, and 21.

The Court observed that the respondents were not "backdoor entries" but were selected via a transparent, open recruitment process against sanctioned vacancies.

Applying the "essence of employment" test, the Court found their duties were indistinguishable from those of permanent employees and essential to the functioning of the NDMC.

The Court rejected the NDMC’s contention regarding the need to wait for UPSC approval or new RRs, stating that once a right to regularization crystallizes through consistent Supreme Court precedents, it cannot remain in "suspended animation".

The bench noted that the UPSC's refusal to recommend regularization based on a strict reading of Uma Devi was legally untenable, as recent jurisprudence clarifies that long-term extraction of regular labor under temporary labels constitutes an unfair labor practice.

Structural changes or administrative drift cannot extinguish accrued claims to regularization for perennial work.

The Court held that the respondents are entitled to prospective regularization with the benefit of pay fixation, seniority, and continuity of service from their initial dates of appointment.

The Court clarified that no back wages would be granted.

The NDMC was directed to implement the judgment within 12 weeks.