Long-serving contractual employees performing perennial duties may be regularised against supernumerary posts where sanctioned vacancies are unavailable.

The employees were initially engaged by Delhi Technological University (“University”) on contractual/temporary terms in 2010–2011 for posts including Office Assistant, Assistant Librarian, Driver, Technical Assistant, Mechanic and Storekeeper, pursuant to a newspaper advertisement and a walk-in selection process.

At the time, no recruitment rules were in force. They continued working for the University for more than fifteen years, without adverse material being placed against their performance.

The employees previously sought regularisation in W.P. (C) 4221/2014, which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to pursue the claim if the University failed to regularise them.

In separate proceedings, the High Court directed payment of allowances equivalent to those available to regular employees, which the University implemented.

The University conducted a regular recruitment process in 2018–2019, granting age relaxation to the contractual employees; only one employee was successful.

The employees thereafter filed W.P. (C) 10830/2020. The learned Single Judge directed the University to undertake a structured review of sanctioned strength and vacancies, create or augment posts where institutionally required, and consider regularisation.

Both sides appealed: the employees sought direct regularisation from the date of initial engagement, while the University challenged the regularisation directions altogether.

1. Whether employees initially engaged on contractual terms through a walk-in selection process, without recruitment rules or appointment against sanctioned posts, could be considered for regularisation after more than fifteen years of continuous service?

2. Whether the absence of sanctioned vacancies or posts barred the Court from directing consideration of regularisation, or justified creation of supernumerary posts?

3. Whether the employees were entitled to automatic regularisation from the date of their initial engagement, rather than merely consideration for regularisation?

The Court applied State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, which prohibits regularisation of illegal or backdoor appointments but distinguishes such appointments from irregular appointments of qualified persons made through a selection process and continued for long periods against sanctioned posts; paragraph 53 of Umadevi contemplates one-time consideration of such irregular appointees.

It relied on Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327, holding that continuous service in duties indistinguishable from those of regular employees and selection through a process resembling regular recruitment may justify reconsideration of temporary status, and that procedural non-compliance does not necessarily render an appointment illegal.

The Court further relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, and Pawan Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8313, which recognise that prolonged, continuous and unblemished service in essential and recurring functions may warrant regularisation where the initial appointment was not illegal, mala fide, surreptitious or a backdoor entry.

It also relied on Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 909, which holds that Umadevi is not an absolute bar to regularisation merely because the initial engagement was not against sanctioned posts, particularly where the State has retained employees for long periods in essential recurring functions and acted arbitrarily in denying fair treatment.

The Court held that the employees’ initial engagement was irregular but not illegal.

Although the appointments were not made under recruitment rules and followed a walk-in process advertised only in Delhi newspapers, the employees had undergone a selection process and their appointments could not be characterised as backdoor entries, particularly since no recruitment rules existed in 2010–2011.

Their uninterrupted service for more than fifteen years, performance of perennial and institutionally necessary duties, absence of adverse material, and treatment comparable to regular employees in respect of allowances demonstrated that the temporary character of their engagement had substantially evolved over time.

Applying the distinction in Umadevi between illegal and irregular appointments, and the later decisions recognising fairness in cases of prolonged contractual employment, the Court rejected the University’s contention that regularisation was legally impermissible.

However, it did not grant automatic regularisation from the initial date of engagement.

It modified the Single Judge’s directions by requiring consideration against the relevant posts and, where posts or vacancies were unavailable, through creation of supernumerary posts.

The University was directed to consider regularisation of the employees on the respective posts against which they were engaged in 2010–2011, if vacancies were available.

If the relevant posts were not sanctioned or vacancies were unavailable, the University was directed to create supernumerary posts for the purpose of considering regularisation.

Such supernumerary posts would cease upon the superannuation of the employees regularised against them.

The entire exercise was required to be completed within three months from 19 August 2026.

No order as to costs was made.