Contractual employees with less than ten years of service cannot claim regularization under the exceptions in Umadevi.

The eleven appellants were appointed as helpers/attendants by the respondent (DTTDC) in 2007 following an advertisement for short-term project work for "Dilli Haat"

Their appointment letters explicitly stated the engagement was for six months and created no right for regular appointment

Their services were extended periodically until December 31, 2014

The appellants previously filed a writ petition for regularization which was dismissed with liberty to move a fresh petition if they could satisfy the conditions laid down in paragraph 53 of the Umadevi judgment

They subsequently filed W.P.(C) 3295/2015, which the Single Judge dismissed on the grounds that persons appointed for a limited period via advertisement cannot seek regularization

Whether the appellants are entitled to regularization of their services under the exception carved out in paragraph 53 of the Supreme Court's judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi?

The court primarily applied the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, specifically Paragraph 53, which permits a "one-time measure" for regularizing the services of irregularly appointed employees who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts without the cover of court orders

It also considered the principle from State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130, regarding the replacement of temporary employees with other temporary employees

The Court focused strictly on the mandate provided by the previous Division Bench order, which required the appellants to prove their case fell within the specific criteria of Umadevi Para 53

The Court observed that for an "regular" (as opposed to "illegal") appointment to be regularized, a minimum of ten years of continuous service is a mandatory prerequisite

Upon reviewing the facts, the Court found that the appellants joined between July and October 2007 and were discontinued on December 31, 2014

This resulted in a total service duration of approximately seven years

Consequently, the Court reasoned that since the appellants failed to meet the ten-year threshold stipulated by the Supreme Court, the question of whether their initial appointment was "irregular" or "illegal" became moot

The Court dismissed the appeal and all pending applications, affirming that the appellants did not satisfy the legal criteria necessary to claim the benefit of the "one-time measure" for regularization