Continuous contractual service against recurring essential duties entitles employees to regularisation despite temporary appointment labels.

The petitioners were appointed as Mathematics Teacher, Librarian, Clerks, Peon, and Sweeper at the Himachal Pradesh Revenue Training Institute, Joginder Nagar, in August 2014.

Their appointments followed a walk-in interview process based on a public advertisement and were made on a contractual basis against 8 temporary sanctioned posts.

The petitioners’ services were extended annually without break for over a decade, and they received annual increments.

In March 2024, the State converted these temporary posts into regular posts but refused to regularize the petitioners, contending that regular vacancies must be filled via fresh recruitment agencies and exams as per Recruitment and Promotion (R&P) Rules.

The petitioners sought regularization parity with Respondent No. 4, whose services had been regularized in 2014 under similar circumstances.

The Court applied the constitutional mandate of Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment).

The Court relied on the "Model Employer" doctrine, which obligates the State to provide fair and stable employment practices.

The Court primarily utilized the principles from Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), which held that long, uninterrupted service in essential roles cannot be dismissed as merely contractual.

Principles from Dharam Singh v. State of H.P. (2025), which cautioned against balancing budgets on the backs of those performing recurring public functions.

The court looked to Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026) regarding the "Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation," where a due selection process was followed at the initial stage.

The Court observed that the petitioners were not "backdoor entries" but were recruited through a transparent walk-in interview based on merit and eligibility.

The Court reasoned that since the posts have now been converted into regular posts and the petitioners have rendered over 12 years of diligent service, the State’s reliance on the technicality of R&P Rules for fresh recruitment is unjustified.

Citing Jaggo, the Court noted that the perennial nature of the duties performed (cleaning, teaching, clerical work) necessitates classification as regular.

The Court found the State’s conduct discriminatory, noting that Respondent No. 4 had been regularized while the petitioners were denied the same benefit despite being similarly situated.

The Court emphasized that the "prolonged extraction of regular labour under temporary labels" offends the constitutional promise of equal protection.

The Court held that while regularization could not have been granted before the creation of regular posts in March 2024, the petitioners’ decade-long service and open recruitment process distinguish them from irregular appointees.

The Court directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners forthwith from the date of the judgment with all consequential benefits.

The petition was allowed.