Long-serving contract physicians appointed transparently against sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization from initial appointment.

The four applicants were appointed as Siddha Medical Officers by the Puducherry Directorate of AYUSH in August 2015, following a walk-in interview before a departmental selection committee. Their appointments were contractual, initially for 120 days, but they continued working and receiving consolidated remuneration; they held the prescribed qualifications and performed duties equivalent to those of regular Medical Officers.

After the UPSC advertised four Medical Officer (Siddha) posts in June 2025, the applicants sought regularisation from their initial appointment dates, relying in part on prior regularisation orders concerning similarly situated AYUSH and other medical officers.

The respondents opposed the claim, relying on the Recruitment Rules’ requirement of direct recruitment in consultation with UPSC and contending that the applicants’ appointments were contractual and not made through the prescribed process.

1. Whether the applicants’ contractual appointments and prolonged service as Siddha Medical Officers entitled them to regularisation from their initial appointment dates

2. Whether the absence of UPSC recruitment and the contractual terms of appointment precluded regularisation in the circumstances of this case

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the procedural basis for the applicants’ claim before the Tribunal.

Article 320(3) requires consultation with UPSC on matters relating to recruitment to civil services and civil posts; however, the Madras High Court authority concerning Puducherry appointments, relied on by the Tribunal, treated appointments made to meet an urgent need, against sanctioned posts and through a transparent process, as irregular rather than illegal in the circumstances of that case.

The Tribunal also relied on Uma Devi as distinguished in the authorities it cited: the bar on regularisation targets illegal or backdoor appointments, while prolonged service following an otherwise fair selection against sanctioned functions may support regularisation where the appointment is merely irregular.

The principles quoted from Jaggo and Vinod Kumar, through Pawan Kumar, further direct courts to consider the realities of continuous service and the nature of the work rather than relying solely on the temporary label attached to an appointment.

The Tribunal found that the applicants possessed the prescribed qualifications, had been selected by a constituted departmental committee through a transparent process, and had served continuously since 2015 performing work equivalent to that of regular employees.

It also noted that their engagement had not exceeded the sanctioned posts and that there was no allegation of a backdoor or opaque appointment.

Applying the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments and the authorities concerning long-serving employees, the Tribunal concluded that the contractual terms and absence of UPSC selection did not defeat the claim in the particular circumstances.

It also relied on earlier regularisation decisions involving similarly situated employees, including decisions upheld by the Madras High Court and Supreme Court.

No arrears of pay or other monetary benefits were payable for the period before the order.

The applicants’ service was to count as regular for pension, career progression and other retirement benefits; pay was to be notionally fixed from the initial appointment date, with regular-scale pay and full emoluments effective from 24 September 2026.

The directions were to be implemented within three months of receipt of the order; no order as to costs.