Long-serving employees’ regularisation upheld despite findings of irregular appointments.

The appeals challenged a common order dated 16 March 2021 allowing a batch of writ petitions and directing the Bank to regularise the petitioners’ services within two months, failing which they would be treated as regular employees after that period.

The Bank appealed out of time; although the appeals had been pending for four years, its counsel did not press the application for condonation of delay.

The respondents relied on the Bank’s subsequent compliance in regularising Santosh Sanodhiya.

The Bank relied on a 2024 enquiry report finding appointments and promotions irregular, but the Court noted that no action had been taken against the responsible officers, the petitioners had continued in service, and the Bank’s Board and the Joint Registrar had previously recommended regularisation.

Whether the common order directing regularisation warranted interference in light of the Bank’s challenge to the petitioners’ appointments as irregular.

Whether the appeals should be dismissed where the Bank did not press its application for condonation of delay.

The Court referred to State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, for the distinction between irregular appointments, which may be regularised in appropriate circumstances, and illegal appointments, which cannot be regularised.

It also relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, quoting observations concerning the misuse of temporary employment and the exploitation and insecurity faced by temporary workers.

The judgment gives an inconsistent citation for Jaggo—“[(2006) 4 SCC 1]”—so its report citation cannot be reliably stated from the text.

The Court considered the Bank’s reliance on the enquiry report but noted that, despite the report, the petitioners remained in service, the Board had recommended regularisation in view of vacant sanctioned posts, and the Joint Registrar had also recommended regularisation.

It further invoked Jaggo’s discussion of the exploitation of temporary employees and concluded that the circumstances did not justify disturbing the writ court’s direction.

Although the Bank’s delay application was not pressed, the Court did not expressly decide the appeals on limitation and instead dismissed them after considering the merits.

The writ court’s direction to regularise the petitioners within two months, with deemed regular status thereafter if no order was issued, remained undisturbed.