Long-Term Contractual Service Cannot Be Arbitrarily Terminated to Replace One Set of Employees With Another

The petitioners were engaged as Research Fellows in 2009 under the Elephant Management Action Plan of the Forest and Environment Department following a public advertisement and selection process

Their contractual services were extended periodically for nearly 10 years until March 2019

Although the State Wildlife Board recommended the creation of permanent posts and regularization of the petitioners' services due to the perennial nature of wildlife research, the State Government instead issued a fresh advertisement in July 2019 to replace them with a new set of contractual employees (Junior Research Fellows) on similar terms

The petitioners sought quashing of the new advertisement and a direction for regularization based on their long, satisfactory service

1. Whether the petitioners, having served for 10 years on a contractual basis, are entitled to regularization against posts recommended by the State Wildlife Board

2. Whether the State can replace one set of contractual employees with another for work that is perennial in nature

The court applied the principles of fair and non-arbitrary public employment under Article 14 of the Constitution.

It specifically relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) regarding the distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010).

It further integrated the modern interpretation from Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025), which prohibit the "perpetuation of indefinite temporariness" and the use of Umadevi as a "shield to justify exploitation through long-term ad hocism"

The court also noted the State’s GA Department Resolution dated 15.02.2014, which provides for the regularization of contractual employees after six years of service

The court reasoned that the petitioners' initial appointments were not "backdoor entries" or illegal, as they were made through a transparent selection process and backed by Finance Department concurrence

The court found that the State's decision to cap service at 5 years and replace the petitioners with new contractual staff was arbitrary, as the nature of the work remained essential and recurring

Applying the Jaggo precedent, the court observed that misclassifying essential, long-term roles as "temporary" to evade employer obligations constitutes exploitation

The court emphasized that the State cannot perpetrate a state of "precarious employment" when the employer’s own board (Wildlife Board) acknowledged the need for post-creation and service continuity

While the court did not automatically grant regularization, it quashed the attempt to replace the petitioners and directed the State (Opposite Party No. 1) to consider and examine the proposal for the creation of posts and the recommendation for regularization of the petitioners' services in light of the judicial observations. This decision is to be finalized within eight weeks