Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization Based Solely on Length of Service or Dissimilar Academic Duties

The Petitioner originally approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking regularization in the post of Faculty-Cum-System Administrator (FCSA) under the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS).

The CAT dismissed his application on October 8, 2020.

After a delay of nearly six years, the Petitioner challenged this dismissal via a Writ Petition, which the High Court dismissed on March 19, 2026, citing inordinate delay and the fact that the FCSA scheme had ceased to operate in 2024.

Furthermore, the Petitioner had subsequently accepted a fresh contractual appointment as TGT Computer Science.

The Petitioner filed the present review petition seeking a reconsideration of the dismissal order dated March 19, 2026.

1. Whether the order dated March 19, 2026, dismissing the writ petition warrants review in light of the legal standards for regularization of contractual employees.

The Court applied the principles governing the regularization of temporary/contractual staff as elucidated by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Ors. vs. Union of India Ors. (2024 INSC 332) and the Delhi High Court in Nandkishore Subhash Dhekane Others v. Union of India Another (2024:DHC:4960-DB).

These precedents establish that long continuous service alone does not entitle a contractual worker to regularization.

Regularization requires that the appointment be against a substantive post, following a selection process equivalent to regular recruitment, and involving duties identical in nature (academic vs. technical) to regular cadres.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner held no merit for review based on two primary grounds. First, the Petitioner failed to explain the six-year delay in challenging the original Tribunal order, and the scheme (FCSA) under which he sought regularization no longer exists.

Second, applying the Nandkishore Subhash Dhekane precedent, the Court noted that FCSAs were not appointed against regular posts and their recruitment process was not a "mirror image" of regular TGT appointments.

The Court emphasized that there is no parity between the technical job of an FCSA and the purely academic post of a TGT Computer Science teacher.

Thus, the Petitioner's shift to a new contract as a TGT Computer Science teacher, combined with the settled law on the distinction between FCSA and regular TGT posts, rendered the challenge to the CAT order meritless.

The Court affirmed that contractual employees under specific schemes cannot claim regularization as a matter of right once the scheme ceases or if the recruitment nature differs from substantive posts.

The review petition and all pending applications were dismissed.