Employees hired for a time-bound emergency project have no right to regularisation after its completion.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation recruited the petitioners as Staff Nurses/ANMs and Ward Boys on temporary, contractual terms to meet emergency healthcare needs.

Their appointments were made following advertisements stating that the engagements were for the duration of the pandemic and would end automatically when the pandemic-related need ceased; the advertisements also excluded claims to reappointment or municipal service.

After the Corporation decided to outsource Health Department manpower, it issued an order discontinuing the petitioners’ services from 30 April 2022.

The Industrial Court dismissed the union’s unfair-labour-practice complaint and vacated its interim protection.

The petitioners challenged the termination and outsourcing decision, sought regularisation or continued service, and obtained interim protection from the High Court.

The High Court considered both petitions together.

Whether the Corporation could discontinue the petitioners’ temporary, contractual services, recruited for the COVID-19 emergency, after the pandemic-related requirement had ceased.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to regularisation or continued employment, including on the basis that they had worked continuously and remained in service under an interim order.

Whether the Corporation could adopt a policy of outsourcing manpower for its Health Department.

Under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, temporary, contractual, casual or daily-wage service does not itself confer a right to regularisation; appointments must conform to the applicable rules and constitutional requirements under Articles 14 and 16.

The limited Umadevi exception, as explained in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari and reiterated in Madan Singh v. State of Haryana, concerns qualifying employees who have worked for at least ten years in duly sanctioned posts without court-ordered protection, where the appointments are irregular but not illegal.

Where an engagement is tied to a particular project or scheme, the service ordinarily ends with that project or scheme, and its duration does not create a right to regularisation or continued employment after its cessation: Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police, Assam.

Interim protection does not create a substantive right to appointment or regularisation and remains subject to final adjudication.

The Court distinguished Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, which concerned appointments made through a selection procedure and did not involve recruitment expressly limited to a particular emergency.

The Court found that the advertisement and appointment terms made the petitioners’ engagements temporary and expressly connected them to the COVID-19 emergency; the engagements were therefore co-terminous with that contingency, rather than a means of filling regular vacancies.

Applying Umadevi and the project-specific engagement principles in Mohd. Abdul Kadir, the Court held that the petitioners’ service did not confer a right to regularisation or continuation once the stated need ended.

Their continued service under the interim order could not create such a right, and Manish Gupta did not assist them because the appointments there were materially different.

The Court also held that the Corporation could formulate an outsourcing policy.

Both petitions were dismissed, the interim orders were vacated, the Rules were discharged, and no costs were awarded; the applications were also disposed of.