Housing Board must decide employees’ regularization representation in light of Supreme Court precedent.

The ten petitioners claimed to have been validly appointed pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2012 and to have rendered more than 13–14 years of uninterrupted service against sanctioned posts.

They alleged that the Bihar State Housing Board had neither framed a policy for their regularisation nor decided their repeated representations seeking regularisation and continuity of service.

The petitioners further asserted that similarly situated employees had already been regularised pursuant to a decision taken in the Board’s 245th meeting, making the failure to consider their cases arbitrary and discriminatory.

During the hearing, the Board submitted that similarly situated employees had previously been granted liberty to approach the authorities by filing detailed representations.

The petitioners had already submitted such a representation, marked Annexure P/6.

1. Whether the petitioners’ representation seeking regularisation and continuity of service was required to be considered by the Bihar State Housing Board in light of their alleged long service, sanctioned appointments, and the treatment accorded to similarly situated employees.

2. Whether the Court should direct the competent authority to decide the petitioners’ claim in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand.

The Court considered Article 14 principles against arbitrary and discriminatory State action, particularly in the context of allegedly unequal treatment of similarly situated employees.

It referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, concerning the constitutional limits on regularisation of irregular or temporary appointments and the relevance of the manner in which appointments were made.

It also relied upon the mandate of Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 99, as the governing Supreme Court authority relevant to consideration of the petitioners’ regularisation claim.

The Court applied the procedural principle that where a representation raising a claim for service regularisation is pending, the competent authority must consider and decide it in accordance with law; the Court did not itself order regularisation.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ grievance was limited to non-consideration of their claim for regularisation and continuity of service, rather than an immediate judicial direction granting regularisation.

Their assertions regarding long, uninterrupted service, appointment pursuant to an advertisement, sanctioned posts, and the prior regularisation of similarly situated employees disclosed matters requiring consideration by the competent authority.

Since the petitioners had already filed a detailed representation and the Board acknowledged that similarly situated employees had been permitted to approach the authorities, the Court considered it appropriate to adopt a limited mandamus requiring a reasoned administrative decision.

The Court therefore left the merits open and directed the Managing Director to examine the representation in accordance with the applicable Supreme Court decisions, including Bhola Nath.

Respondent No. 4, the Managing Director of the Bihar State Housing Board, was directed to consider the petitioners’ representation, Annexure P/6, and bring it to its logical conclusion in light of the Supreme Court’s applicable legal principles, preferably within ten weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the order.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.