Engagement without formal procedure does not constitute 'irregular' appointment for regularization.

The applicant, D. Sivakumar, claimed to have been appointed as a Mail Van Driver on May 29, 2015, by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul, and further asserted continuous employment since 2014 against a sanctioned post.

He contended that his service was terminated on December 10, 2020, after the filing of the OA, and his representation for reinstatement was rejected on June 7, 2021.

The respondents, however, stated that the applicant was an "outside Driver" engaged on a contingency basis, paid daily wages only when employed, and was never formally appointed as a Mail Van Driver.

They asserted that his services were utilized only when a regular driver was on leave, without any formal recruitment process such as vacancy notification, interviews, or tests.

The respondents maintained that he was engaged on an "off-hand basis".

The applicant provided communications dated March 31, 2015, August 21, 2017, June 20, 2018, and November 22, 2019, as evidence, which instructed him to perform specific tasks related to mail van handling.

Whether the applicant was validly appointed as a Mail Van Driver and has been working continuously since 2014.

Whether the termination of the applicant's service was unlawful, entitling him to reinstatement with consequential benefits.

The court primarily applied the principles of regularization of services established in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (2006 (4) SCC 1), which prohibits regularization of "illegal" appointments made without sanctioned vacancies, public advertisements, or competitive selection processes.

It also considered the clarifications from Jaggo Vs. Union of India & ors (2024 INSC 1034) and Dharam Singh Vs. State of UP (2025 INSC 998).

The Jaggo case allows regularization of "irregular" appointments involving procedural lapses but some pre-recruitment processes, and protects workers performing perennial duties for over 10 years through contractual appointments, aiming to prevent exploitation.

The court found that the applicant failed to produce any document indicating a formal engagement, whether full-time, part-time, contractual, or outsourced.

The respondents explicitly stated he was orally engaged for specific tasks in contingencies, without any formal appointment process.

The communications provided by the applicant, dated between 2015 and 2019, were interpreted as mere instructions for carrying out specific tasks on particular days due to contingencies for smooth mail service operations, rather than appointment orders.

The court concluded that these documents could not be construed as an appointment order, nor did the applicant submit any termination order to substantiate his claim of continuous employment since 2014.

Therefore, the court determined that the applicant's engagement was an "illegal" appointment under the Umadevi principles, lacking the necessary procedural steps for regularization, and did not fall under the protective aspects of the Jaggo case, which requires some form of pre-recruitment process for "irregular" appointments.

The court held that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of appointment and continuous service, and his engagement did not meet the criteria for regularization under the established legal precedents.