Contractual employees’ functional equivalence must be assessed independently of pay-matrix mismatch.

The petitioners, contractual employees with more than five years’ service, applied under the horizontal reservation for contractual employees in recruitment to Supervisor Class-III (Executive) posts.

Although they participated in the examination, achieved high ranks and completed document verification, they were excluded from appointments because their contractual posts were at Pay Matrix Levels 4 or 5, whereas the Supervisor post was at Level 6.

The State appointed 158 candidates; the petitioners sought consideration against unfilled vacancies and undertook not to disturb those appointments.

The Court had earlier made the appointments subject to the outcome of the lead petition and restrained further appointments to the remaining vacancies.

Whether contractual posts at Pay Matrix Levels 4 or 5 could be treated as “equivalent” to the Level 6 Supervisor post for the contractual-employee reservation under the GAD circular dated 22 July 2023.

Whether the petitions could be entertained without impleading the appointed candidates, where the petitioners sought relief only against unfilled vacancies.

Whether the petitioners’ exclusion should be referred for functional-equivalence assessment by the Equivalence Committee, notwithstanding the pay-matrix requirement.

The GAD circular dated 22 July 2023 governs the reservation and equivalence assessment, superseding the earlier 5 June 2018 circular; its clauses 1.2 and 1.3 and Appendix-1 make Pay Matrix Level the benchmark for equivalence, while clause 3.3 provides for a High-Level Committee to resolve difficulties concerning equivalence.

Relying on Md. Firoz Mansuri v. State of Bihar, the Court stated that prescribing qualifications and assessing equivalence fall principally within the employer’s policy domain and are not ordinarily for courts to rewrite.

Article 14 permits reasonable classification between distinct recruitment streams.

The Court also recognised that there is no estoppel against a statutory requirement, while treating late communication of disqualification as procedurally unfair.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that a shared Class-III classification established equivalence, holding that the 2023 circular deliberately adopted Pay Matrix Level as the governing test and did not permit reliance on the superseded 2018 approach.

It also found no relevant parity with Anganwadi workers or earlier appointments made under the 2018 circular, as those arose under distinct recruitment arrangements.

However, because the petitioners’ eligibility was communicated only after they had taken the examination and completed verification, and because clause 3.3 provided a mechanism for resolving equivalence difficulties, the Court directed a functional assessment by the Committee without setting aside the applicable circular or existing appointments.

The petitions were maintainable to the limited extent that the petitioners sought consideration against vacancies that would not affect appointed candidates.

The Committee was directed to assess their substantive, functional and administrative duties against those of a regular Supervisor and issue a reasoned decision within 90 days, independent of the strict pay-matrix mismatch.

The State was directed to keep 41 of the 84 unfilled contractual vacancies vacant during that period.

The petitions were disposed of without an order as to costs.