Long-serving contractual employees selected through open recruitment are entitled to reinstatement and regularization with age relaxation.

The applicant was engaged by the Regional Medical Research Centre, ICMR, Belagavi, as a Mali pursuant to a newspaper advertisement, interview and verification of his qualifications in 2006. He joined on 13.10.2006 on a temporary contractual basis against a post carrying prescribed qualifications, and his engagement was repeatedly renewed, generally for 89-day periods with short artificial breaks, until 2021.

From 2021 to 2025, he continued performing the same perennial duties through an outsourcing agency, but his engagement was discontinued from 01.02.2025.

In the 2018 recruitment process, he secured the highest marks and was recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment as Lab Attendant-I/MTS. Since he had become over-age under the revised Recruitment Rules, the Director recommended age relaxation to the Director General, ICMR, under the applicable power-to-relax provisions.

The applicant’s representation and reminder seeking regularisation and age relaxation remained undecided. After the High Court disposed of his earlier writ petition as withdrawn, he approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking consideration of age relaxation, regularisation and consequential benefits.

Whether the applicant’s initial engagement in 2006 was against a sanctioned/vacant post and through a constitutionally recognised process of selection, rather than an illegal or backdoor appointment.

Whether the repeated 89-day contractual engagements and artificial breaks from 2006 to 2021 constituted an unfair, arbitrary or exploitative employment practice.

Whether the Director General, ICMR acted arbitrarily by failing to decide the recommendation for one-time age relaxation despite the applicant’s selection in 2018 and long service.

Whether the applicant’s case attracted the one-time regularisation principle recognised in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The ICMR MTS Cadre Post Rules, 2012, particularly Rule 12, empowered the Director General to relax recruitment requirements for recorded reasons.

Rule 12 of the ICMR Technical Cadre Integrated Recruitment and Assessment Rules, 2017, permitting age relaxation for eligible persons working continuously on ICMR projects.

State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, especially paragraph 53, permits one-time consideration of regularisation of duly qualified persons appointed against sanctioned posts who have worked for ten years or more without court intervention, while distinguishing illegal appointments from irregular appointments.

The Tribunal also relied on M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 432, Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327, and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, for the principles that long-term contractual engagement cannot be used to perpetuate exploitative employment, and that the State must act as a model employer.

The Tribunal further invoked Article 14 principles against arbitrary State action and the doctrine of legitimate expectation where engagement followed a proper selection process and was repeatedly continued.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s entry was not through the backdoor because the post of Mali had been publicly advertised, eligible candidates were invited, the applicant was interviewed and his qualifications and credentials were verified before selection.

His repeated engagement for nearly 15 years in the same perennial work demonstrated that the post was not genuinely temporary. The artificial 89-day breaks and the later transfer to outsourcing were held to be devices that deprived him of continuity and employment protections, and therefore arbitrary and exploitative.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant was qualified when initially engaged, had been selected as the highest-merit candidate in 2018, and had received a specific recommendation for age relaxation under rules conferring such power on the Director General.

The prolonged failure to decide that recommendation, despite the applicant’s satisfactory service and the availability of a power to relax, was treated as arbitrary non-exercise of discretion.

Applying Umadevi and the subsequent authorities, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant’s case involved a lawful open-selection process, a sanctioned/vacant post, long continuous service and perennial duties, and therefore warranted regularisation rather than denial based merely on contractual nomenclature.

It directed the respondents to reinstate him immediately and regularise his services either from completion of ten years from initial appointment or from his 2018 MTS selection, whichever was later, after granting the necessary age relaxation.

The applicant was also held entitled to consequential benefits, wages for the period of wrongful removal and interest at 8%.

The respondents were directed to implement the order within 12 weeks, failing which interest would accrue at 18%, recoverable from the officers held responsible.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.