Headline: Long-term service in a sanctioned post justifies regularisation despite procedural irregularities by the employer.

The Petitioner was engaged as a Librarian at the Respondent No. 1 school (a 95% government-aided minority institution) in July 2009 following a public advertisement and interview

Although he fulfilled all recruitment qualifications and served continuously for over a decade, his appointment was treated as temporary/ad hoc on a fixed honorarium

In 2018, the school’s Managing Committee resolved to forward his request for regularization to the Directorate of Education (DoE), noting the post had been vacant since 1999

However, the DoE later contended that statutory recruitment procedures under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules (DSEAR), 1973, were not followed

Following the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the Respondents ceased paying the Petitioner and sought his eviction from school accommodation

1. Whether the Petitioner’s long-term engagement against a sanctioned post constitutes an "regular" appointment capable of regularization or an "illegal" backdoor entry

2. Whether the school and DoE can deny regularization by citing a failure to follow procedural formalities entirely within their own administrative control

3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to regularization with consequential benefits and the right to retain school accommodation

The Court primarily applied the principles from Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], distinguishing between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments

It further relied on State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247], which permits regularization for qualified persons in sanctioned posts with 10+ years of service

The court applied the "substance over label" doctrine from Jaggo v. UOI [2024 SCC OnLine 3826] and Vinod Kumar v. UOI [(2024) 9 SCC 327], asserting that procedural defaults by the employer cannot defeat substantive rights

Finally, it followed the Division Bench ruling in Pawan Sharma v. GNCTD [2025:DHC:9789-DB], holding that employees selected through public-facing processes mirroring regular recruitment need not compete afresh

The Court found that the Petitioner’s entry was not "backdoor" as it followed a public advertisement and interview

The DoE’s own compliance affidavit admitted the existence of a sanctioned vacant post and the Petitioner's eligibility

The Court reasoned that the failure to complete the full DSEAR recruitment process (three-language advertisements, Employment Exchange notifications, etc.) was an institutional lapse by the school and DoE, not the Petitioner

Applying the evolved "constitutional employer" standard, the Court held that extracting work for 11 years at low wages while ignoring a sanctioned vacancy is exploitative and contrary to the spirit of Uma Devi

Consequently, the Petitioner's long, blemish-free service matured into a right to regularization

The Respondents were ordered to process his approval within 12 weeks without requiring a fresh selection process

The Petitioner was granted notional pay fixation from 2019 and continuity of service for seniority and retiral benefits, though full back wages for the period not worked (post-May 2020) were denied unless actual work is proven

Regarding accommodation, the Court held the Petitioner has no permanent right and ordered him to vacate within four months

The contempt petition was discharged as the interim order lacked a clear, continuing injunction