Prolonged contractual service following transparent selection warrants regularization where State policy supports it.

Respondent No. 2, the Himachal Pradesh State Agricultural Marketing Board, issued an advertisement dated 25 August 2017 inviting applications for appointment as Project Manager in the e-National Agricultural Market (e-NAM) project on contract basis. The petitioner applied, participated in an interview before a Selection/Expert Committee along with eleven other candidates, and was appointed as Project Manager by order dated 25 September 2017.

She joined on 26 September 2017 and continued to serve on successive contractual extensions.

The petitioner sought regularization after completing two years of contractual service and submitted a representation dated 26 February 2021. The Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh-cum-Chairman of the Board, by communication dated 2 July 2024, directed that the petitioner’s services be regularized prospectively and that Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post be framed.

Despite the communication, the Board did not issue a regularization order. During the writ proceedings, the Board’s Service Committee considered the matter and declined regularization, stating that the post was project-linked and temporary, was not part of the regular sanctioned cadre, and was not governed by notified Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

The petitioner consequently sought a direction for regularization from 25 September 2019, with arrears of salary and other consequential financial benefits.

Whether the petitioner, having been appointed through an advertised and competitive selection process and having served continuously as Project Manager since 2017, was entitled to regularization despite the contractual character of her appointment.

Whether the Board could deny regularization on the grounds that the post was not encadred in the regular establishment, was allegedly outside the sanctioned strength, and was not governed by notified Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

Whether the communication dated 2 July 2024 directing prospective regularization bound or otherwise required the Board to regularize the petitioner’s services.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to retrospective regularization from 25 September 2019 or only prospective regularization with consequential benefits.

The Court applied the constitutional principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness and equal opportunity under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, holding that the State, as a model employer, cannot retain employees on temporary or contractual arrangements indefinitely where their engagement followed a transparent selection process and their work is continuous and integral to the institution.

It considered the principles in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, particularly the distinction between illegal appointments and irregular appointments, and the limits on regularization and legitimate expectation.

The Court also relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, concerning long and uninterrupted contractual service in essential functions; Dharam Singh v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, concerning the State’s obligations as a constitutional employer and the impermissibility of prolonged “ad-hocism”; and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129, concerning legitimate expectation arising from lawful selection, repeated contractual extensions and long service.

The Court further held that the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 could not support the Board’s refusal because the Act had been declared ultra vires by the Division Bench in Devinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No. 3361 of 2025, and the State’s Special Leave Petition had been dismissed.

The Court found that the petitioner’s appointment was not a back-door or clandestine appointment: the Board had justified the requirement for the post, issued a public advertisement, received applications from twelve candidates, conducted an interview, and appointed the petitioner on the Selection Committee’s recommendation.

Accordingly, the Board’s subsequent description of her appointment as illegal or wholly dehors the sanctioned post, statutory rules or constitutional scheme was held to be perverse and unsustainable.

Her continuous service for approximately nine years also indicated that the post and the work performed had an element of permanence, rather than being merely occasional or temporary.

The Court treated the Chairman’s communication dated 2 July 2024 as a direction to regularize the petitioner prospectively and held that the Board’s refusal, particularly after having itself initiated the selection and repeatedly continued her engagement, was arbitrary and unreasonable.

The Service Committee’s reliance on the absence of encadrement, notified rules and the contractual exclusion in the Board’s Regulations was therefore rejected in the circumstances of the case.

However, the Court did not grant the requested regularization from 25 September 2019; it fixed the effective date as 2 July 2024, the date of the Chairman’s direction.

The Court declared the Board’s failure to regularize the petitioner’s services legally unsustainable and directed the respondents to regularize her as Project Manager with effect from 2 July 2024, rather than from 25 September 2019.

The regularization was ordered to carry all consequential benefits, including monetary and seniority benefits.

The petition and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.