Irregular Appointees Cannot Claim Regularization of Service From the Date of Initial Appointment as a Matter of Right.

The petitioner was appointed as a fixed-pay worker (Rs. 2,000/-) in the Water Works Department of the Junagadh Municipal Corporation on May 11, 2000

His appointment was "irregular," as it did not follow a regular recruitment or selection process

His services were renewed periodically until the Corporation regularized him via an office order dated February 2, 2017, effective from January 1, 2017

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to regularize his service retrospectively from his initial date of appointment (2000) with all consequential benefits

Whether an irregular appointee is entitled to regularization of service from the date of initial appointment rather than the date fixed by the employer’s regularization policy

The Court applied Article 226 and Article 12 of the Constitution of India, noting that appointments by the State must adhere to recruitment rules to be valid

It relied on the landmark Constitution Bench decision in *Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1*, which allows for a one-time regularization of irregular appointees who have completed 10 years of service but does not mandate retrospective regularization from the date of entry

The Court also referenced *Bhola Nath v. The State of Jharkhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129*, which established that regularization typically takes effect from the date of the court's decision or the employer's policy date, not the initial appointment date

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner’s initial appointment in 2000 was not made through a regular selection process, it was "irregular" and conferred no inherent right to claim regularization from the date of entry

The Corporation only framed its Recruitment Rules in 2016, and the petitioner was regularized shortly thereafter in 2017

The Court noted that the petitioner failed to show any legal provision or right that entitles an irregular appointee to backdated regularization

Following the precedent in *Umadevi*, the Court found that while the petitioner was eligible for regularization as a one-time measure, his service could not be counted as regular from the year 2000 because he was a fixed-term, fixed-wage worker during that period

The direct answer to the issue is that regularization of irregular employees takes effect from the date determined by the authorities or the court, not from the inception of irregular service

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the rule was discharged