Long service does not entitle part-time employees to regularization absent appointment against sanctioned posts through lawful recruitment.

The petitioners, serving as lecturers or instructors in Government Polytechnic Colleges for periods ranging from approximately 12 to 25 years, challenged orders dated 5 January 2024 rejecting their requests for regularisation from their respective initial appointment dates.

They had initially been engaged on a part-time basis and were brought under consolidated pay from 2019; the State contended that their appointments did not comply with the recruitment rules or reservation requirements and were not against sanctioned posts.

The petitioners sought regularisation and consequential benefits under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioners’ long service in Government Polytechnic Colleges entitled them to regularisation or absorption, notwithstanding that they were engaged on a part-time basis and their appointments did not follow the prescribed recruitment process.

Whether the impugned orders rejecting regularisation were liable to be quashed in light of the preference and age relaxation provided to the petitioners in the recruitment process, and the Division Bench’s decision in a similar matter.

The Court applied the principle that long service, by itself, does not entitle an employee to regularisation where the initial appointment was illegal or was not made through a lawful, open recruitment process against a sanctioned vacant post.

It relied on Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai v. R. Govindaswamy, (2014) 4 SCC 769, and the Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 1063 of 2022 and connected cases (20 April 2022), which declined regularisation in a similar context while recognising preference in recruitment subject to applicable rules and cut-off marks.

The Court also construed G.O. (Ms.) No. 74 as extending regularisation to full-time, but not part-time, employees.

The petitioners’ reliance on Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 998, and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam, 2026 INSC 523, was noted, but the Court found the question whether the petitioners held sanctioned posts decisive.

The Court accepted that breaks in service during college vacations were artificial, but held that this did not resolve the central question of the legality and nature of the initial appointments.

It found that reservation requirements and recruitment rules had not been followed and that adequate publicity had not been given.

The appointment order for the lead petitioner described him as a part-time Instructor, not as a Lecturer appointed against a sanctioned post; the Court further observed that no sanctioned Instructor post existed.

Long service therefore could not create a right to regularisation.

The Court also noted that the petitioners had been allowed to compete in recruitment with age relaxation up to 57 years and two additional marks, and that G.O. (Ms.) No. 74 did not extend regularisation to part-time employees.

Following the Division Bench ruling in the materially similar case, the Court found no basis to interfere with the rejection orders.

It dismissed all the writ petitions and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions, with no order as to costs.