Long contractual service does not entitle employees to regularisation absent constitutionally compliant initial selection.

The applicants, comprising 42 contractual House Fathers and 37 contractual House Mothers, were engaged by the Department of Social Welfare/Women and Child Development between December 2012 and January 2013. They claimed that their engagements followed advertisements, interviews, and appointment against sanctioned posts, and that they had continuously performed duties for more than ten years through successive contractual extensions.

They sought quashing of the rejection order dated 5 December 2023, regularisation from the dates of their initial appointments, alternatively consideration under a one-time regularisation policy, amendment of the Recruitment Rules for absorption, and HRA/TA benefits.

The applicants challenged Advertisement No. 05/2024 dated 5 March 2024 for recruitment to the posts of House Father/House Mother, contending that the advertised posts were the same posts against which they had been working. On 27 April 2024, the Tribunal had directed maintenance of status quo and restrained the respondents from filling 42 House Father and 37 House Mother posts.

Ms. Vishakha Rohilla, who had participated in the open competitive examination conducted pursuant to the 2024 advertisement, filed M.A. Diary No. 5073/2026 seeking impleadment, vacation/modification of the interim order, declaration of the examination results, and issuance of appointment letters. Her impleadment as private respondent No. 4 was allowed, while her remaining prayer was left to be considered with the OAs.

The respondents contended that the applicants had been engaged purely on contract through walk-in interviews, without the prescribed open competitive recruitment process under the applicable Recruitment Rules. They further submitted that the 2024 recruitment was conducted under the 2022 Recruitment Rules through a rigorous merit-based examination, with age relaxation available to eligible contractual employees.

The Tribunal found that the original applicants’ engagement had followed a walk-in interview whose advertisement was not widely published in the press, and that the open competitive examination had subsequently been completed, with successful candidates awaiting appointment.

Whether the applicants, having served for more than ten years as contractual House Fathers and House Mothers, were entitled to regularisation or consideration under a one-time regularisation policy?

Whether the applicants’ initial contractual engagement through walk-in interviews constituted a constitutionally valid selection process sufficient to support regularisation against sanctioned posts?

Whether the recruitment process initiated under Advertisement No. 05/2024 could be restrained or invalidated on the ground that the applicants were already working against the relevant posts?

Whether the interim status quo order dated 27 April 2024 should be vacated or modified to permit declaration of the examination results and appointment of successful candidates?

The Tribunal applied the constitutional requirement under Articles 14 and 16 that public employment must ordinarily be filled through a fair, open and competitive selection process affording equal opportunity to all eligible candidates.

It relied principally on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, which restricts regularisation of persons appointed otherwise than through the prescribed constitutional and statutory recruitment process; State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, concerning the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments; and the principle that long contractual service, by itself, does not create a vested right to regularisation.

The applicants relied on authorities including Nihal Singh, Narinder Kumar Tiwari, Sheo Narain Nagar, Chander Mohan Negi, Kiran Sharma, Sonia Gandhi, and Pawan Sharma, which recognise that regularisation may be considered where appointments were not illegal, were made against sanctioned posts, or where prolonged contractual employment reflected governmental exploitation.

However, the Tribunal distinguished those authorities on the facts, holding that the applicants’ entry was not through a sufficiently open and competitive process and that the respondents had subsequently undertaken regular recruitment under the applicable Recruitment Rules.

The Tribunal held that the applicants’ case was weakened because their initial engagement in 2012 was through a walk-in interview, and the relevant advertisement had not been widely published in the press. Consequently, the selection did not provide a level playing field or adequately satisfy the equality-of-opportunity requirement under Article 16.

The applicants’ long and continuous contractual service, even against sanctioned posts, could not cure the foundational defect in the mode of entry or override the terms of their contractual appointments.

The Tribunal also noted that the Department had subsequently framed new Recruitment Rules in 2022 and conducted a regular recruitment process pursuant to the 2024 advertisement. The examination had been completed and successful candidates selected on merit were awaiting appointment.

Since the applicants had not sought the available age relaxation or participated in the open competitive examination, granting them regularisation would have displaced candidates who had undergone the constitutionally prescribed selection process.

The balance of convenience therefore favoured completion of the regular recruitment process rather than continuation of the status quo in favour of the contractual employees.

On merits, the Tribunal dismissed O.A. Nos. 585/2024 and 1274/2024, holding that the applicants were not entitled to regularisation or to restrain the regular recruitment process.

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ walk-in contractual engagement lacked the requisite openness and competitiveness, whereas the subsequent recruitment under the 2022 Recruitment Rules was merit-based and had been completed.

The interim protection was consequently not continued, and the MAs were disposed of in similar terms. There was no order as to costs.