Long-serving part-time employees performing perennial duties cannot be discriminatorily denied consideration for regularization.

The applicant was engaged as a part-time Craft Instructor (Tailoring and Embroidery) by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration on 30 July 2001 and continued to work, subject to artificial breaks, for more than two decades on consolidated remuneration.

She claimed that she possessed the qualifications prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules and that she performed duties of a perennial nature comparable to those performed by regular Craft Instructors.

In O.A. No. 351/00163/2014, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider her representation and pass a reasoned order.

Pursuant thereto, the respondents passed the impugned speaking order dated 20 February 2015, rejecting her claim on the grounds that part-time engagement conferred no right to regularization, that the applicable Recruitment Rules did not permit automatic absorption, and that she was not similarly situated to persons regularized pursuant to earlier judicial orders.

The High Court restored the earlier proceedings and permitted the applicant to amend her pleadings to specifically challenge the speaking order, directing the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh on merits.

During the present proceedings, the applicant relied on the Tribunal’s order dated 29 June 2026 in the cases of Smt. Malati Halder and Shri Kangkan Mondal, concerning similarly situated long-serving part-time Craft Instructors.

Whether the respondents’ speaking order dated 20 February 2015, rejecting the applicant’s claim for regular appointment or regularization, was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether the applicant, having served continuously for more than two decades as a part-time Craft Instructor and having performed perennial duties, was entitled to consideration for regularization on parity with similarly situated employees.

Whether the principles governing regularization of long-serving temporary or irregular employees, as discussed in *Uma Devi*, *Jaggo v. Union of India* and *Shripal v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad*, applied to the applicant’s case.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and applied the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16.

It considered the statutory Recruitment Rules governing appointment to the post of Craft Instructor, while recognizing that long-term engagement for work of a perennial nature cannot automatically be used to defeat legitimate claims through repeated temporary or part-time appointments.

The respondents relied on *Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1*, which generally prohibits regularization of appointments made dehors the constitutional and statutory recruitment scheme.

The Tribunal also relied on the later decisions in *Jaggo v. Union of India* and *Shripal v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad*, holding that prolonged and continuous temporary employment for perennial work may constitute an irregular, rather than wholly illegal, appointment and requires fair consideration for regularization; the State cannot exploit temporary labels to deny employment security indefinitely.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that similarly situated employees must receive equal treatment and that administrative decisions rejecting parity claims must provide a proper comparative justification.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been engaged along with other Craft Instructors and had continued to perform similar duties for approximately 24 years.

The respondents’ own conduct in repeatedly extending her engagement and paying her prescribed remuneration indicated that the work was perennial rather than sporadic or purely seasonal.

The Tribunal noted that similarly placed persons engaged under the same or comparable orders had been regularized or granted consideration for regular appointment, yet the respondents failed to furnish a convincing comparative explanation for excluding the applicant.

Although the respondents invoked the Recruitment Rules and *Uma Devi*, the Tribunal treated the applicant’s case as one involving alleged discriminatory treatment and long-standing engagement for perennial duties, rather than a claim for automatic absorption wholly outside the recruitment framework.

Relying particularly on its decision dated 29 June 2026 in the cases of Malati Halder and Kangkan Mondal, and on the Supreme Court’s discussion in *Jaggo* and *Shripal*, the Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of the same fair and transparent regularization process extended to similarly situated employees.

It therefore quashed and set aside the speaking order dated 20 February 2015.

The respondents were directed to extend to the applicant the benefit of the Tribunal’s order dated 29 June 2026 concerning similarly situated Craft Instructors and to complete the entire exercise within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.