Irregular Engagement Without Due Process Does Not Warrant Regularization or Quashing of Recruitment.

The applicant, D. Sivakumar, previously filed OA No. 560 of 2020 seeking regularization of his service as a Mail Van Driver in the 2nd respondent's office.

He was terminated from service by an order dated 10.12.2020, shortly after that OA was numbered.

His subsequent representation for reinstatement on 17.12.2020 was rejected by the 2nd respondent on 07.06.2021, citing no sanctioned post.

Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued a notification on 17.03.2022 for recruitment to fill a single vacancy in the post of Staff Car Driver in the Dindigul region.

The applicant alleged that the respondents were improperly trying to fill this vacant post, to which he believed he was entitled, without considering his prior service.

The respondents clarified that the impugned notification was for filling four vacancies of Staff Car Driver on deputation/absorption basis, failing which by re-employment or absorption from other ministries, with specific eligibility criteria for those already in the Department of Posts.

The respondents stated that the applicant was an "outside Driver" engaged on a daily wage, task-basis whenever there was a vacancy due to leave, and was never formally appointed as a Mail Van Driver through any selection process.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's prior OA No. 560/2020 on 03.03.2026, finding it devoid of merit.

Whether the notification issued by the 3rd Respondent dated 17.03.2022 for recruitment to the Staff Car Driver post should be quashed.

Whether the applicant has a right to claim regular appointment in the post of Staff Car Driver.

The court primarily relied on the principles established in Jaggo v. Union of India & ors (MANU/SC/1403/2024), which distinguishes between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments.

The Jaggo case allows for the regularization of "irregular" appointments that involve primary procedural lapses but have undergone some pre-recruitment processes the court.

Conversely, it strictly prohibits the regularization of "illegal" appointments, defined as engagement without any sanctioned vacancy, public advertisement, or competitive selection process, endorsing the Constitution Bench's judgment in Umadevi case.

The Jaggo case protects workers performing perennial duties integral to the organization's functioning for over 10 years via contractual appointment, refining the law against exploitation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided any documentation to establish his initial engagement on a full-time, part-time, contract, or even outsourced basis.

Instead, the Tribunal's previous order in OA 560/2020 noted that he was engaged orally for specific tasks only when a regular driver was absent due to sickness or leave.

The respondents further asserted that the applicant was an "outside Driver" paid daily wages, and not subjected to any pre-recruitment formalities like vacancy notification, interview, or driving tests.

Applying the principles from the Jaggo case, the applicant's engagement, being without formal appointment processes or sanctioned post, fell under the category of an "illegal" appointment rather than an "irregular" one.

Therefore, the applicant had no right to claim regular appointment.

As the applicant's previous OA seeking regularization was already dismissed as devoid of merit, his attempt to quash the current recruitment notification based on an unsubstantiated claim of entitlement was not maintainable.

The court implicitly held that the notification for the Staff Car Driver post should not be quashed as the applicant had no legitimate claim or right to the post.

The court also concluded that the applicant's previous engagement was an "illegal" appointment, thus not warranting regularization.

No order as to costs was made.