Contractual employees cannot be regularised where governing service rules prescribe promotion as the exclusive recruitment mode.

The petitioner was appointed by the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna (“IGIMS”) as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on contract for eleven months pursuant to a selection process and appointment letter dated 3 October 2017.

His engagement was extended periodically, ultimately by order dated 5 September 2020 until a new appointment was made or an advertisement for contractual employment was issued.

In December 2024, IGIMS issued Advertisement No. 02/Non-Faculty/Estt./IGIMS/2024 inviting applications for appointment to various posts, including Assistant Engineer (Electrical), on deputation.

IGIMS selected respondent no. 6, Firoz Alam, for appointment on deputation as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The petitioner was thereafter relieved by office order dated 12 March 2025.

Separately, the petitioner sought regularisation of his contractual service in CWJC No. 756 of 2025. IGIMS rejected his request by communication dated 4 November 2024, stating that there was no provision for regularising a contractual employee and that the post was required to be filled in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules.

The applicable AIIMS, New Delhi recruitment rules, which governed service conditions at IGIMS, provided that Assistant Engineer (Electrical) posts were to be filled 100% by promotion from the feeder cadre of Junior Engineer (Electrical) with eight years’ regular service.

Whether a contractual employee whose engagement had been extended until a new appointment was made could be replaced by another temporary or deputation appointee before regular recruitment was completed?

Whether appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by deputation was permissible under the AIIMS, New Delhi recruitment rules applicable to IGIMS?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularisation or permanent absorption merely because he had served continuously on contract since 2017 pursuant to an earlier selection process?

Whether the petitioner’s relieving order dated 12 March 2025 was liable to be set aside and his contractual service continued until regular appointments were made?

The Court applied the AIIMS, New Delhi recruitment rules governing IGIMS, under which the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) was to be filled 100% by promotion from eligible Junior Engineers and was not open to appointment by deputation, direct recruitment or absorption.

Relying on State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118, the Court applied the principle that an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee and may be replaced only by a regularly selected employee.

Relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Court held that contractual or temporary service does not confer a right to regularisation or permanent absorption, particularly where the appointment is not made in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and constitutional requirements.

The Court also relied on State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, reaffirming that regularisation is not a mode of recruitment and that temporary employees have no enforceable right to permanent status merely by continued service.

The Court found that the petitioner’s engagement had expressly been extended until a new appointment or contractual advertisement was made, and that no regular appointment had yet taken place.

Although IGIMS relied on deputation to justify replacing him, the governing recruitment rules did not permit deputation for the post; they required promotion from the Junior Engineer cadre.

Consequently, replacing the petitioner with another temporary/deputation appointee would contravene the principle in Piara Singh, particularly when the petitioner’s contractual engagement remained operative until regular appointment.

The Court therefore held that the petitioner could not be disturbed merely because IGIMS had selected a deputationist and set aside the relieving order.

However, the Court distinguished continuation from regularisation. Continuous contractual service, even after a selection process, could not override the applicable recruitment rules, which mandated promotion and created no route for regularisation or absorption of the petitioner.

Since four Junior Engineers had become eligible and a promotion process was proposed, the petitioner had no legal right to regularisation.

The Court rejected the challenge insofar as it sought regularisation or permanent absorption.

CWJC No. 756 of 2025 was dismissed because the petitioner had no enforceable right to regularisation, the applicable rules required 100% promotion to the post, and regularisation could not be used as a substitute for the prescribed recruitment process.

Both writ applications were accordingly disposed of.