Continuous service following open competitive contractual appointment counts toward seniority despite prospective regularisation.

The applicants were appointed as Dental Specialists by the New Delhi Municipal Council (“NDMC”) on a contractual basis on 10 October 2014 pursuant to an open advertisement and competitive selection process against sanctioned posts. Their initial appointments were for six months, but they continued uninterruptedly thereafter. NDMC subsequently extended to them pay parity, annual increments and allowances comparable to regular doctors under Resolution No. 10(H-03) dated 20 June 2014, and renewed their contracts in long-term blocks

After the Recruitment Regulations were notified by Gazette Notification dated 20 May 2022, the applicants were assessed by the Union Public Service Commission and found fit for regular appointment in October 2022. NDMC granted them pay protection, waived their probation by order dated 31 March 2023, and granted them financial upgradation under the DACP scheme on 9 August 2024. However, their seniority and other service benefits were not counted from their initial appointment date; regularisation and related benefits were confined to the period commencing under the 2022 Regulations

The applicants’ representation dated 11 November 2024 seeking seniority and consequential benefits from 10 October 2014 was rejected on 6 February 2025, primarily relying on a Ministry of Home Affairs communication dated 13 March 2023. They therefore challenged Clauses 5 and 9 of the Gazette Notification and sought counting of their contractual service for seniority, pay fixation and continuity of service

Whether the applicants’ continuous service from 10 October 2014, rendered after an open and competitive selection against sanctioned posts, could be counted for seniority and continuity of service notwithstanding their contractual designation and the prospective regularisation under the Recruitment Regulations dated 20 May 2022?

Whether Clauses 5 and 9 of the Gazette Notification dated 20 May 2022 were liable to be read down to recognise the applicants’ pre-notification service under the “Initial Constitution” principle?

Whether the applicants’ engagement letters, Resolution No. 10(H-03), and the Ministry of Home Affairs communication dated 13 March 2023 could lawfully defeat their claim for seniority and consequential service benefits?

Whether granting seniority from the initial appointment date would impermissibly prejudice employees appointed through direct recruitment after 20 May 2022?

The Tribunal applied the principle in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715, that uninterrupted officiating service may count towards seniority where the initial appointment is not strictly in accordance with the rules but the employee continues until regularisation

It relied on Siraj Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 19 SCC 480, distinguishing a stop-gap appointment made without considering eligible candidates from an appointment made after due consideration of competing candidates, in which case continuous service may be counted

The Tribunal also relied on Sports Authority of India v. Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana, Civil Appeal Nos. 2296–2298/2025, concerning treatment of duly selected contractual appointees as “Initial Constituents” under newly framed recruitment rules

It further applied the principles stated in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327, Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, and subsequent decisions, that constitutional protection cannot be denied to employees whose appointments are irregular but not illegal, and that State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 is directed against illegal or backdoor appointments rather than duly selected employees rendering long and continuous service

The Tribunal treated New Delhi Municipal Council v. Kalpana Sharma, W.P.(C) Nos. 4646/2026 and 4649/2026, decided 13 April 2026, as a materially analogous decision directing prospective regularisation but retrospective counting of seniority and continuity of service

It also held that administrative instructions cannot override binding constitutional and judicial principles under Articles 14, 16, 141 and 144 of the Constitution

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ appointments were, at the highest, irregular and not illegal because they followed a public advertisement, competitive selection and appointment against sanctioned posts

Their uninterrupted service from 10 October 2014, performance of duties identical to regular Dental Specialists, and NDMC’s subsequent conduct—pay parity, increments, probation waiver, pay protection and DACP benefits—demonstrated that their service had been treated substantively as equivalent to regular service

Applying the Direct Recruit and Siraj Ahmad principles, the Tribunal held that the contractual label and exclusionary terms in the offer letters could not defeat accrued constitutional and service-law rights. Similarly, Resolution No. 10(H-03) and the Ministry communication could not override binding precedent or justify denial of benefits arising from continuous service

The Tribunal read down Clauses 5 and 9 of the 2022 Regulations because their failure to recognise pre-notification service conflicted with the Initial Constitution principle and unfairly penalised the applicants for the respondents’ delay in framing recruitment regulations

It rejected the prejudice argument, holding that the applicants’ seniority could be adjusted without reopening or displacing the rights of direct recruits

Clauses 5 and 9 of the Gazette Notification dated 20 May 2022 were read down to the extent that they excluded the applicants’ continuous pre-notification service

The applicants’ seniority as Dental Specialists was directed to be reckoned from their initial appointment date, 10 October 2014, subject to adjustment for pay protection, increments and DACP benefits already granted

Their regularisation was to operate prospectively from 20 May 2022, and they were denied arrears of pay or back wages for the earlier contractual/ad hoc period

NDMC was directed to issue a revised seniority list within eight weeks, the rejection order dated 6 February 2025 was set aside, and a compliance affidavit was directed to be filed within twelve weeks

There was no order as to costs