Long-serving contractual employees recruited via transparent selection processes are entitled to regularization despite non-sanctioned post status.

The petitioners were engaged as Data Entry, Lift, and Generator Operators at MKCG Medical College and Hospital starting in 2008 following a government directive

Their appointments resulted from a 2009 public advertisement and a transparent selection committee process, though they were designated as contractual staff paid from the hospital's "Users Funds" rather than sanctioned treasury posts

Despite a 2013 government resolution for the regularization of Group C and D contractual employees after six years of service, and recommendations from hospital authorities for post-creation, the State refused to formalize their appointments

The State contended the petitioners held no right to regularization as they did not occupy sanctioned posts and were funded through internal sources

1. Whether the services of contractual employees engaged through a transparent selection process can be regularized under the GA Department resolution of 2013 despite the absence of sanctioned posts

2. Whether the source of remuneration (Users Funds vs. State Treasury) serves as a valid legal ground to deny regularization to long-serving employees

The Court applied the principles from Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), which distinguishes between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments, allowing for the regularization of the latter as a one-time measure for those with ten years of service

It further relied on State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari regarding the "one-time measure" exception

Recent precedents like Jaggo v. Union of India and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, which critique the "misclassification" of workers to evade employer obligations

The court also referenced the State’s own GA Department Resolution dated 17th September 2013, which established the policy for regularizing contractual staff

The Court reasoned that while a contractual employee generally has no vested right to a sanctioned post, the State must act as a "model employer" and cannot perpetually exploit workers through repeated renewals

The court found the petitioners' initial entry was not a "backdoor entry" because it followed a public advertisement and selection process, rendering the appointments "irregular" rather than "illegal"

Utilizing the logic in Jaggo, the court noted that the nature of work performed—rather than the label of the fund used to pay them—should determine employment rights

The Court observed a lack of parity and "discrimination," noting that similarly situated Radiographers at a different medical college had already been regularized

Consequently, the lack of sanctioned posts was deemed a procedural hurdle that the State, as a model employer, should rectify by creating supernumerary posts if necessary, rather than denying basic security to those who served for over a decade

The Court answered that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the 2013 Resolution regardless of the source of their remuneration

The State (Opposite Party No. 1) was directed to regularize the petitioners' services and complete the necessary absorption formalities within three months of receiving the judgment