Contractual lecturers are not entitled to regularisation absent sanctioned posts and compliance with Umadevi conditions.

The petitioners were engaged as contractual lecturers in Government polytechnics after advertisements and walk-in interviews in 2007 and 2008. Their engagements began in 2008–09 and were renewed successively; they served until 2021.

They sought regularisation, but the Government’s 26 February 2021 order instead enhanced remuneration and provided for continuation until age 60, annual increments subject to performance, and a terminal benefit.

The Tribunal declined to order regularisation and directed the Department to take steps to fill vacant lecturer posts, either by absorbing the contractual lecturers or through fresh recruitment.

The petitioners challenged that order, seeking regularisation or absorption and a restraint on fresh recruitment.

Whether the petitioners had an enforceable claim to regularisation or absorption as lecturers.

Whether the Tribunal’s refusal to grant regularisation warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Under *Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)*, regularisation is not ordinarily available to employees engaged outside the prescribed regular recruitment process; the limited exception in paragraph 53 concerns qualifying employees who served for at least ten years in duly sanctioned posts, without court-ordered protection.

*State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari* clarifies that the exception may apply where the appointment was irregular, rather than illegal, including where the employee was qualified and worked against a sanctioned post but was not selected through open competition.

Regular appointments to the lecturer posts were governed by recruitment rules notified under Article 309 and contemplated recruitment through the Public Service Commission.

The Court also applied the coordinate Bench decision in *Sirshendu Ghosh v. State of West Bengal* and relied on *Najma Khatun v. State of West Bengal* for the continuing force of *Umadevi*.

The Court found that the advertisements did not establish that the petitioners were engaged against sanctioned posts; documents relied on by them concerned other individuals and did not prove the status of their own posts.

The petitioners also had not shown that they participated in the 2018 Public Service Commission recruitment process, and their contractual engagements expressly disclaimed any right to regularisation or absorption.

They therefore failed to satisfy the *Umadevi*–*Kesari* requirements, including service against sanctioned posts.

The Court distinguished *Jaggo*, *Dharam Singh* and *U.P. Junior High School Council Instructors Welfare Association* on their facts and found the petitioners’ case covered by *Sirshendu Ghosh*.

Both writ petitions were dismissed.