Long-serving contractual employees appointed through due process against sanctioned posts warrant regularization, subject to eligibility.

AIIMS Rishikesh advertised a Senior Hindi Officer post on contract in 2014.

Neera Tiwary was selected and appointed on 11 February 2015 against a sanctioned post, initially for 11 months, with extensions thereafter.

She served continuously for more than ten years.

After AIIMS advertised the post again in January 2025, she sought regularization, stating that she could not apply because she was over the age limit and no age relaxation was provided.

Following a prior Tribunal direction to consider her representation, the respondents rejected her claim by a speaking order dated 8 August 2025.

She then filed the present OA seeking regularization from her initial appointment and, among other relief, quashing of the recruitment advertisement for the post.

The Tribunal allowed the OA and, in the order’s concluding paragraph, disposed of the contempt petition without separate orders.

1. Whether the applicant, appointed through a selection process against a sanctioned post and continuously engaged for more than ten years, was entitled to consideration for regularization notwithstanding the contractual terms of her appointment.

2. Whether the applicant should be regularized from the date of her initial appointment, subject to eligibility under the applicable Recruitment Rules.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for an application before the Tribunal.

In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Supreme Court directed a one-time exercise to consider regularization of duly qualified persons irregularly appointed against sanctioned posts who had completed ten years’ service without court or tribunal protection; it distinguished irregular appointments from illegal appointments.

The Tribunal also considered the principles in State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429, the Government of India regularization policy dated 30 June 2014, and the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 7 October 2020 concerning the Umadevi framework.

It relied on Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327, Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024, and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018, as emphasizing that long service and the substance of the employment relationship must be considered, and that Umadevi should not be applied to defeat otherwise legitimate claims of irregularly appointed employees.

The Tribunal found that the Senior Hindi Officer post was sanctioned and that the applicant had been selected through an advertised process.

Her service exceeded ten years, had continued through periodic extensions granted by the respondents, and was not continued under court orders.

Applying its understanding of Umadevi and the later Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal treated the appointment as regular and legal in the relevant sense, rather than as an illegal backdoor entry.

It held that the contractual terms of the initial appointment did not, by themselves, bar regularization in light of Vinod Kumar.

The Tribunal therefore found that the applicant was entitled to regularization, while making that relief subject to her eligibility under the applicable Recruitment Rules.

The respondents were directed to complete the exercise within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal disposed of the contempt petition without separate orders and made no order as to costs.