Contractual nomenclature cannot defeat consideration for regularisation after prolonged service through due selection against sanctioned posts.

The applicants were appointed by AIIMS Raipur to various Group ‘B’ posts between 2013 and 2016 after a notified selection process.

Although their appointment orders described their engagement as contractual for 11 months, their contracts were repeatedly extended, and they continued working for nearly a decade.

AIIMS committees and governing bodies considered their regularisation; the Governing Body recommended that the proposal be placed before the Institute Body, which directed a high-level committee to examine the matter.

Before that committee reported, the respondents issued an order dated 29 December 2023 advertising vacancies.

The applicants sought regularisation and challenged that order.

The Tribunal had earlier directed that no coercive steps be taken against them.

Whether the applicants’ long-term contractual service, following a selection process and against sanctioned posts, warranted consideration for regularisation under the principles governing irregular appointments.

Whether the respondents could proceed with the applicants’ services and the advertised vacancies without first considering the institutional recommendations and the applicable law on regularisation.

Under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), public employment ordinarily must comply with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and courts should not regularise appointments made through illegal or wholly irregular routes.

State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari explains that the one-time measure in Uma Devi concerns employees who have served for more than ten years against duly sanctioned posts, without interim protection, where their appointments were irregular rather than illegal; lack of prescribed qualifications or appointment to an unsanctioned post may make an appointment illegal, whereas a procedural defect may make it irregular.

The Tribunal also relied on Jaggo v. Union of India and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, which caution against mechanically invoking Uma Devi to deny consideration to employees engaged through due selection against sanctioned posts and retained for prolonged periods; contractual nomenclature alone is not determinative.

The Tribunal further referred to the Rajasthan High Court’s decision in CW No. 13603/2024, which required a fresh, reasoned consideration of regularisation in a comparable matter.

The Tribunal found that the applicants entered service through a notified selection process, that there was no allegation of fraud or suppression of qualifications, and that their contracts had been renewed for nearly a decade.

Their sustained service and the continued use of their services indicated an ongoing institutional need, distinguishing their case from a short-term engagement for a temporary project.

Applying Kesari, Jaggo and Bhola Nath, the Tribunal held that the contractual label could not by itself settle the question or justify refusing consideration.

It also treated the Governing Body’s recommendation and the Institute Body’s direction for further examination as relevant matters requiring consideration.

The Tribunal did not itself determine that the applicants must be regularised; it directed the respondents to decide their cases in light of those matters and the applicable precedent.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicants’ regularisation, taking into account the AIIMS Raipur Governing Body recommendations discussed in the minutes of the Institute Body’s 7th meeting dated 27 October 2023 and the precedent law on regularisation, within three months of receiving the order.

The interim protection granted on 9 January 2024 was to remain in force until that decision; no order as to costs was made.