Rajasthan HC Upholds Order To Regularise 3 Veterinary Officers, Counting Service From 2013 Despite Earlier Terminations

In brief

The question

1. Whether the respondents’ initial appointments as Veterinary Officers under Rule 26, followed by long-term service, entitled them to regularization

The court held

The Court held that the respondents were entitled to regularization and that the Single Judge’s direction to regularize them after ten years, computed from their initial joining dates, was correct.

It also directed

The State’s special appeal was dismissed, as were any pending applications.

01Facts

The respondents were appointed as Veterinary Officers in 2013 following a selection process under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963.

¶ 3

After approximately three years, their services were terminated; they challenged the terminations and continued in service after their writ petitions were allowed.

¶ 3–6

In 2020, they sought regularization, which the State refused.

¶ 3–6

A Single Judge directed regularization after completion of ten years’ service, calculated from the respondents’ initial joining dates.

¶ 3–6

The State appealed, contending that the appointments were temporary and the respondents’ service under court orders could not count towards the ten-year period.

¶ 9–10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the respondents’ initial appointments as Veterinary Officers under Rule 26, followed by long-term service, entitled them to regularization

¶ 4–5, 8–9

ii.2. Whether the respondents’ termination and subsequent continuation in service pursuant to court orders prevented their service from counting towards the ten-year period for regularization

¶ 6, 10–12

03Law Applied

Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963 governed the appointments in question.

¶ 3

Under State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, irregular appointments of duly qualified persons to duly sanctioned vacant posts, followed by ten or more years’ service, may be considered for regularization as a one-time measure; paragraph 53 distinguishes such irregular appointments from illegal appointments and refers to service rendered without the cover of court or tribunal orders.

¶ 12

Relying on Jaggo v. Union of India, the Court stated that termination does not, by itself, disentitle an employee from consideration for regularization if the applicable requirements are otherwise met.

¶ 11–12

The Court also relied on Vinod Kumar v. Union of India and other authorities concerning the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments and the relevance of long, continuous service.

¶ 12–13

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the respondents had been selected and appointed in 2013, had served the Department since then, and had continued after successfully challenging their terminations.

¶ 3, 9

It rejected the State’s contention that the termination and court-ordered continuation defeated their claim, relying on Jaggo for the proposition that termination alone does not bar regularization where the requirements are otherwise satisfied.

¶ 10–12

It further treated the Department’s repeated termination of employees performing continuing work as an attempt to deny the benefits of regularization, and concluded that the Single Judge had committed no error in directing regularization from the initial dates of joining.

¶ 13

05Holding

The Court held that the respondents were entitled to regularization and that the Single Judge’s direction to regularize them after ten years, computed from their initial joining dates, was correct.

¶ 13–15

The State’s special appeal was dismissed, as were any pending applications.

¶ 13–15

LawLens.Rajasthan High Court

Original Court PDF