MP HC Rejects Contract Sub-Engineers’ Bid For Regularisation Before Recruitment, Upholds 20% Quota For Contract Staff

The petitioners were Sub-Engineers employed on contract in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) or the Madhya Pradesh Police Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation.

They challenged the State’s recruitment advertisement dated 27 July 2022 for regular Group-III engineering posts and, in some petitions, the amendment dated 1 February 2020 inserting Rule 11(8) into the Madhya Pradesh Development Commissioner Panchayat and Rural Development Class-III, Ministerial and Non-Ministerial Service Recruitment Rules, 1999.

Rule 11(8) reserved 20% of direct-recruitment vacancies for qualifying contractual employees and provided an age relaxation.

The petitioners sought consideration for regularisation before open recruitment, arguing that the advertisement and amendment undermined their claimed right or legitimate expectation of regularisation, including under the State’s 5 June 2018 policy.

The Court applied the Constitution Bench ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, that contractual or temporary employment does not, by length of service alone, create a right to regularisation; courts should not obstruct regular recruitment to protect such employees, and legitimate expectation cannot confer a right to permanent appointment contrary to the constitutional scheme of public employment.

It also relied on the principle that judicial review of policy is limited: a court may intervene if a policy is arbitrary or contrary to law, but should not substitute its view for the policy-maker’s on the merits of the policy (State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117; State of Jharkhand v. Ashok Kumar Dangi, (2011) 13 SCC 383).

The Court considered the State’s 5 June 2018 policy, including its 20% quota for contractual employees and age relaxation, and Rule 11(8), which provided similar benefits.

It also applied the proportionality framework cited from K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

The Court found that the petitioners had been appointed to sanctioned contractual posts, distinct from regular posts; in MGNREGS, no regular Sub-Engineer posts existed.

The recruitment therefore did not displace the petitioners from their contractual posts or adversely alter their service conditions.

The 2018 policy and Rule 11(8) provided a structured opportunity to compete for regular posts through a 20% contractual-employee quota and age relaxation; the policy did not promise en-bloc absorption or consideration against all regular vacancies.

The Court held that Municipal Corporation v. State of M.P. was distinguishable because the present recruitment did not extinguish the petitioners’ prospects in their existing establishment.

It also distinguished Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, noting that the employees there had been terminated, whereas the present petitioners faced no comparable adverse impact.

The quota arrangement was found to balance opportunities for contractual employees with the State’s interest in recruiting fresh candidates, and was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.

It declined to interfere with the amendment or the advertisement and dismissed the petitions.

The petitioners remained free to compete under the applicable contractual-employee quota and age relaxation, and, subject to the relevant age limits, in open recruitment as well.