Regularization cannot be claimed as a right despite long service if statutory eligibility and sanctioned posts are absent.

The Appellant, working as a daily wage Helper in the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department since 1996, sought regularization after nearly 30 years of service

Despite earlier directions from the Lokayukta and the High Court in WPS No. 5200/2016 to consider his case, the Respondents rejected his claim, citing lack of educational qualifications under the Recruitment Rules, 2016

The Appellant challenged this rejection via WPS No. 3503/2019, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on 19.02.2026

The Single Judge found that the Appellant failed to meet the qualifications for the post of Hand Pump Technician and provided no evidence of vacancies for the post of Hand Pump Helper

The Appellant filed this intra-court appeal contending that his case for the Class-IV post of Helper was erroneously clubbed with Technician posts

1. Whether the Appellant has an indefeasible right to regularization based on long-term continuous service despite failing to meet statutory eligibility criteria.

2. Whether the Single Judge's order was perverse for not considering the Appellant specifically for the post of Hand Pump Helper in light of alleged vacancies.

The Court applied the principle that regularization is not a vested right and cannot be granted dehors (outside) the statutory recruitment rules or in the absence of sanctioned vacant posts

It relied on the Public Health Engineering Department Recruitment Rules, 2016, which prescribe specific educational qualifications for appointments

The Court further adhered to the principle of limited jurisdiction in intra-court appeals, whereby interference is only warranted in cases of patent illegality, perversity, or procedural impropriety in the lower bench's decision

The Division Bench observed that the competent authority had already evaluated the Appellant’s case against available posts and found a categorical lack of requisite educational qualifications under the 2016 Rules

The Court reasoned that the Appellant’s three decades of service do not override the requirement to satisfy statutory eligibility conditions for a permanent post

Addressing the Appellant’s claim for the Helper post, the Court noted that the Appellant failed to place any material evidence on record to prove the existence of sanctioned vacant posts for Hand Pump Helpers at the time of consideration

Consequently, the Court found no error in the Single Judge’s decision to dismiss the writ petition as the rejection by the State was in accordance with the law and the specific recruitment framework

The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order dated 19.02.2026 and dismissed the Writ Appeal, stating it was devoid of merit

No costs were ordered