High Court Cannot Order Regularization of Temporary Employees in Violation of Statutory Service Rules

The respondents were appointed as part-time Scavengers in 1983 in the office of the Director of Rural Development

While they were later converted to full-time temporary employees on a special time scale of pay under G.O.Ms.No.385 dated 01.10.2010, their requests for regularization of service were not granted

The respondents filed W.P.No.20719 of 2012, where the Writ Court directed the Government to consider a proposal for regularization and monetary benefits

The State appealed this order, contending that under G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 14.05.2002, such categories (Group D) were to be outsourced to curtail expenditure, and that temporary employees cannot claim permanency in violation of service rules

1. Whether the High Court can issue a direction to the Government to regularize the services of temporary employees in violation of prevailing Service Rules

2. Whether employees who accepted the terms and conditions of temporary/part-time employment can subsequently claim permanent absorption as a matter of right

Regularization and permanent absorption must be conducted strictly in accordance with statutory Service Rules

G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 14.05.2002 recommended outsourcing Group D roles (Sweepers, Scavengers) to manage administrative expenditure

Constitutional courts cannot direct the regularization of services if such an act bypasses the established recruitment framework or framed schemes of the State

The Court reasoned that while the Government has the power to frame policies for the phased absorption of employees if sanctioned posts are available, such decisions are purely administrative and policy-driven

The Court observed that the respondents accepted their appointment as temporary/part-time employees and therefore cannot "turn around and claim permanency" in a manner that bypasses the Rules

The Court highlighted the State's concern that regularizing these employees outside the Rules would "open a Pandora’s Box," leading to thousands of similar claims and an unsustainable financial burden on the State

The Court found that the Writ Court’s "suggestive" direction for regularization was legally untenable as it lacked a basis in the Service Rules

The High Court allowed the Writ Appeal and set aside the order dated 11.03.2021 passed in W.P.No.20719 of 2012