Long-term contractual employees on sanctioned posts cannot be abruptly discontinued without cogent reasons or a speaking order.

The petitioners were engaged as Sweepers on a contractual basis at Late Lakhiram Agrawal Memorial Government Medical College, Raigarh, pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2017; some engagements commenced in 2016 and others in 2017. Their appointment orders contemplated engagement for one year or until regular appointments were made, and their contracts were extended periodically. The petitioners claimed that they continuously performed their duties for approximately eight to nine years before being discontinued by an oral order in March 2025. They sought restoration of their engagement and consideration for regularisation against sanctioned posts

The petitioners relied on correspondence showing that 23 posts of Sweepers for the Medical College and 44 posts for its associated hospitals had been created, and that the Dean had sought permission to appoint Sweepers on a contractual basis. The Commissioner of Medical Education subsequently called for relevant particulars and declared the Dean to be the appointing authority for contractual appointments. The State opposed the petition, contending that the appointments were limited to one year and conferred no continuing right, and that housekeeping and sweeping work had subsequently been outsourced to Metas Security and Fire Services Pvt. Ltd.

1. Whether the petitioners’ discontinuance after several years of repeated contractual extensions, without a formal or reasoned order, was arbitrary and inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of fair treatment under Article 14?

2. Whether, in view of the availability of sanctioned posts and continuing work, the petitioners were entitled to consideration for re-engagement on a contractual basis?

3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to direct appointment or regularisation against the sanctioned posts?

The Court applied the constitutional principle that State action concerning contractual employees must satisfy the requirements of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14.

Relying on Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 30762 of 2024 and connected matters, order dated 30 January 2026, it held that employees engaged for long periods against sanctioned posts cannot be abruptly discontinued merely by invoking the contractual nature of their engagement; a departure from a consistent practice of extension must be supported by cogent reasons and a speaking order.

The Court also relied on Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, which deprecated governmental ad hocism and the use of outsourcing or informal recruitment to evade fair employment obligations.

These principles apply even where the engagement is contractual, particularly when the employees were selected through a process, worked for several years, and rendered satisfactory service.

The Court found that the petitioners’ engagement on contract was not specifically disputed and that the material on record indicated the existence of sanctioned posts and continuing work for Sweepers.

Their contracts had been repeatedly extended, and their continuous service for approximately eight to nine years indicated that their performance had been accepted by the employer.

In light of Bhola Nath, the one-year contractual stipulation could not, by itself, justify abrupt discontinuance after years of renewal, particularly where the petitioners were discontinued through an oral order and no cogent or reasoned decision was shown.

The correspondence concerning the creation of 67 posts and the proposal to appoint Sweepers contractually further demonstrated that the need for such work continued.

However, the Court did not hold that the petitioners had an automatic right to regularisation or permanent appointment; instead, it directed consideration of their claim for contractual re-engagement in accordance with the governing principles.

The consideration was to be completed within three months from receipt of a copy of the order.

The Court granted no direct order of reinstatement, regularisation, or permanent appointment; the relief was limited to consideration of contractual re-engagement.