Court cannot direct absolute regularization; must allow employer to examine eligibility under amended statutory rules.

The respondents (non-appellant nos. 1 & 2) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.06.2017, where the Appellant-Corporation rejected their request for regularization.

The rejection was based on the ground that the Regularization Rules of 2016 had been stayed by the High Court in a separate proceeding.

A Single Judge Bench quashed the rejection and issued a positive mandamus directing the Corporation to regularize their services.

The Appellant-Corporation challenged this direction, contending that while the stay on the Rules was later lifted (subject to amendments), the Corporation was never given the opportunity to verify if the respondents met the eligibility criteria—specifically alleging a break in service for respondent no. 1 and failure to fulfill criteria for respondent no. 2.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in directing the absolute regularization of services without allowing the employer to verify eligibility criteria under the applicable Regularization Rules.

2. Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration in light of the Regularization Rules, 2013 (as amended in 2025) and subsequent judicial developments.

The Court relied on the Regularization Rules, 2013, as amended on 05.12.2025, which were modified following the Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 616/2018 dated 22.02.2024.

The core legal principle applied is that regularization is not automatic; it must be conducted in accordance with the prevailing statutory rules and the fulfillment of prescribed criteria (such as continuous service), and the employer must be permitted to exercise its administrative discretion to verify these facts before a court issues a mandate.

The Court noted that the Appellant-Corporation did not have the opportunity to present evidence regarding the respondents' ineligibility (such as breaks in service) before the Single Judge because the Regularization Rules were under a stay order at that time.

The Division Bench observed that the stay on the rules had since merged into a final order dated 22.02.2024, which amended the rules to a limited extent.

Consequently, the Court found merit in the appellant's submission that the Corporation should be allowed to evaluate the respondents' cases based on the existing legal framework.

Since the counsel for the respondents agreed to a modification of the order to allow for a fresh representation, the Court determined that a direct mandate for regularization was premature.

The Court granted the respondents liberty to file fresh representations with supporting evidence within four weeks; the Appellant-Corporation was directed to pass a speaking order on said representations within a further four weeks.

Any consequential benefits are to be dependent upon the outcome of this fresh consideration.