Long-serving contractual employees on sanctioned posts cannot be arbitrarily disengaged and must be regularized.

The nine petitioners were engaged on a contractual basis between 2004 and 2008 as clerks, typists, office assistants, drivers and pump operators in the Engineering Cell of the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand.

Their contractual engagements were repeatedly extended, and they claimed to have worked continuously without any break until January 2017.

Following the merger of departmental engineering cells with the Building Construction Department, the petitioners’ services were not permitted to continue after January 2017.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed consideration of regularisation of eligible employees under the applicable regularisation rules; the State’s appeal was dismissed.

A subsequent reasoned order refusing regularisation was quashed in W.P.(S) No. 1021 of 2020, with a direction to reconsider the petitioners’ claims in light of Supreme Court precedent.

Thereafter, the Building Construction Department rejected the claims by orders dated 14 August 2024, principally on the grounds that the petitioners had not been appointed against sanctioned posts, had not been appointed by the competent authority, and had not been selected through the prescribed procedure.

During the present proceedings, the petitioners also sought reinstatement.

The Court noted that no formal order of disengagement had been issued, no reasons had been supplied, and the counter-affidavit did not justify their discontinuance.

Departmental records, however, indicated approval of their appointments by the Principal Secretary and their engagement against sanctioned posts.

1. Whether the petitioners’ appointments could be treated as illegal, and whether their long and continuous service against sanctioned posts entitled them to regularisation despite procedural irregularities in their initial engagement?

2. Whether the respondents’ discontinuance of the petitioners without a formal order, notice, hearing or reasons—particularly after the petitioners had approached the Court—was arbitrary and legally unsustainable?

3. Whether the orders dated 14 August 2024 rejecting regularisation were liable to be quashed?

The Court applied the distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments recognised in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari and State of Jammu & Kashmir v. District Bar Association, Bandipora: employees who have completed ten years of continuous service against sanctioned posts, possess the requisite qualifications, and whose appointments are not intrinsically illegal may be considered for regularisation even if open competitive selection was not followed.

Relying on Jaggo v. Union of India, the Court held that abrupt termination of long-serving contractual employees without notice, reasons or hearing violates natural justice and may be arbitrary, particularly where it follows litigation seeking regularisation.

The Court further relied on Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., R. Iyyappan v. Union of India and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand for the principles that perennial and integral work cannot be indefinitely treated as temporary, that the State cannot exploit contractual nomenclature to avoid lawful employment obligations, and that prolonged service against sanctioned posts may require regularisation or creation of appropriate posts.

The Court also emphasised that the State, as a constitutional and model employer, must act consistently with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court found that the respondents’ grounds for rejecting regularisation were contradicted by their own official records.

Departmental file notings demonstrated approval of the petitioners’ appointments by the Principal Secretary, while the Chief Engineer’s letter dated 28 April 2016 showed that they had been working against sanctioned posts.

The petitioners had rendered more than ten years of continuous, satisfactory and unblemished service, and the duties of clerical, driving, operational and office support staff were perennial rather than temporary.

Accordingly, any defect in the mode of initial selection could at most make the appointments irregular, not illegal, within the meaning of the governing Supreme Court precedents.

The Court further held that the respondents had effectively disengaged the petitioners without issuing any formal order, show-cause notice or reasons.

The timing of the discontinuance—after the petitioners had obtained an order in their earlier litigation—supported the conclusion that the action was arbitrary and mala fide, and appeared intended to defeat their claim for regularisation.

Since the respondents had neither followed natural justice nor provided a legally sustainable justification, the rejection orders could not stand.

It held that the petitioners’ long, continuous and satisfactory service against sanctioned posts, coupled with the absence of proof that their appointments were illegal, entitled them to regularisation.

The Building Construction Department was directed to reinstate the petitioners with all consequential benefits and to issue formal orders of regularisation forthwith, and in any event within six weeks of receiving or being furnished a copy of the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.