Prolonged contractual service does not create an enforceable right to regularisation.

The petitioners were engaged by the Kolkata Port Trust/Shyama Prasad Mookerjee Port on contractual/ad hoc terms as Dock Pilots in 2012 and 2014, initially for three years, including a one-year training period. They subsequently obtained competency certificates, performed vessel-pilotage duties, and were periodically engaged under successive contracts. Their engagements were ultimately continued up to 31 March 2028, and they were later re-designated as contractual “Berthing Pilots”.

The petitioners made repeated representations seeking regularisation, contending that they had served continuously for approximately 13–14 years, possessed the requisite qualifications, performed duties similar to regular Dock Pilots, and had been engaged against sanctioned vacancies. During the proceedings, the Port issued advertisements for recruitment of apprentice/regular Dock Pilots, including Advertisement No. DR/25/17 dated 24 September 2025 and a subsequent advertisement in 2026. The respondents opposed regularisation, asserting that the petitioners were purely contractual personnel engaged to meet operational requirements during an embargo on regular recruitment, had no right to any post, and had not been appointed against sanctioned vacancies or through the regular recruitment process prescribed by the 2013 Regulations.

Whether contractual/ad hoc Dock Pilots, engaged through an advertisement and recruitment process but not appointed against sanctioned regular vacancies, were entitled to regularisation or absorption into the regular Dock Pilot cadre.

Whether the petitioners’ prolonged and continuous contractual service, training, qualifications, competency certificates, performance, and similarity of operational duties with regular Dock Pilots created an enforceable right to regularisation.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to be considered in the selection process for regular Dock Pilot posts.

The Court applied the Kolkata Port Trust Employees’ (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 2013, which contemplate structured recruitment, training, examination, and appointment to the regular Dock Pilot cadre.

It applied the principle that regularisation is not an independent mode of recruitment and cannot be granted contrary to the applicable recruitment rules; prolonged contractual or ad hoc service, by itself, does not create a right to permanence.

Relying principally on Official Liquidator v. Dayanand , (2008) 10 SCC 1, and Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar , (2006) 8 SCC 381, the Court held that legitimate expectation does not by itself constitute a legal right to regularisation and that absorption of persons appointed outside the prescribed procedure may undermine Articles 14 and 16 and the statutory recruitment scheme.

The Court treated Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand as having diminished persuasive value insofar as it did not consider the larger-Bench principles in Dayanand . It distinguished Jaggo , Ranjit Kumar Neog , and Dharam Singh on their facts and the nature of the appointments involved.

The Court found that the petitioners’ own engagement letters described their appointments as temporary, contractual, time-bound, terminable, and subject to fresh contractual engagement, rather than appointment to the regular cadre.

The petitioners failed to produce contemporaneous material establishing that they had been appointed against sanctioned Dock Pilot vacancies; their assertion to that effect appeared only in the affidavit-in-reply and was unsupported by service records, sanction orders, or other documentary evidence.

The Court accepted the distinction between regular Dock Pilots, who enter through the prescribed selection, training, and qualifying-examination process and perform additional administrative functions, and the petitioners, who were engaged primarily for operational pilotage duties. Possession of the same or similar marine competency certificate and performance of overlapping operational duties did not establish parity in recruitment status or service conditions.

Applying the rule against regularisation outside the recruitment framework, the Court held that the petitioners’ long service, repeated contractual engagements, and satisfactory performance could not convert their contractual status into a substantive appointment. However, those factors justified directing that they be considered for future regular selection on a humanitarian basis, subject to applicable law.

Nevertheless, considering their long and consistent service, training, qualifications, performance, appreciation received, and age, the respondent authorities were directed to consider the petitioners in the selection process for regular Dock Pilot posts whenever vacancies arose, in accordance with law.

The writ petition was dismissed without costs. Any interim order was vacated, and connected applications were disposed of.