Long-term contractual engagement in perennial roles constitutes irregular appointment eligible for regularization as a one-time measure.

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Project Directors (APDs) on a contractual basis in various District Rural Development Agencies (DRDAs) following a merit-based selection process in 2010.

They executed annual agreements and continued in service for over a decade.

In 2014, the post of APD was re-designated as Programme Manager (PM).

In 2022, the Government of Odisha abolished DRDAs, merging them with Zilla Parishads, and created 150 posts of PMs against which the petitioners were allowed to continue.

The petitioners sought regularization under the Orissa Group-B Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013, having completed more than six years of service.

The State opposed this, arguing that DRDAs were independent societies and the recruitment was not through a regular competitive process.

1. Whether the contractual engagement of the petitioners for over a decade, following a government-approved selection process, entitles them to regularization despite the absence of a formal "regular" recruitment process.

2. Whether the merger of the DRDAs into Zilla Parishads (Local Authorities/State under Article 12) necessitates the regularization of existing employees as a one-time measure.

The Court primarily applied the principles of regularization as interpreted in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), which distinguishes between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments.

It heavily relied on the recent Supreme Court precedents in Jaggo v. Union of India and Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which caution against the "pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts" to evade long-term obligations and emphasize that outsourcing or contractual labels cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitation when work is perennial.

The Court also referenced the Orissa Group-B Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013, regarding the path to regularization after six years.

The Court reasoned that while the petitioners did not undergo a "regular" competitive recruitment process, their selection was not "backdoor" or "illegal" because it followed a government-approved advertisement and scrutiny by a committee led by the District Collector.

Applying Umadevi (3), the Court classified their appointment as "irregular" but valid for regularization consideration.

The Court found the work performed by the petitioners to be perennial and identical to regular employees.

It further noted that after the 2022 merger, the petitioners became employees of Zilla Parishads, which are "Local Authorities" and part of the "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the Court held that the State cannot perpetuate "ad hocism" or exploit workers by denying them social security and job permanence after decades of service.

The Court directed Opposite Party No. 1 to undertake the necessary exercise to ensure the regularization of the petitioners within four months.

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.