Regularization cannot be denied to long-serving contract employees selected through open competition against sanctioned posts.

The applicants were appointed as contractual nursing staff at AIIMS Jodhpur in 2014 after a written examination and interview conducted pursuant to an advertisement.

Although their initial appointments were for 11 months, their contracts were repeatedly extended.

After earlier proceedings, the Rajasthan High Court directed the respondents to reconsider regularisation through a fresh speaking order, taking account of specified AIIMS resolutions and relevant precedent.

The Governing Body decided that the contractual nursing staff could not be regularised; AIIMS then rejected their claims by a speaking order dated 18 December 2024 and terminated their services by orders dated 23 December 2024.

The applicants challenged both decisions.

Whether the respondents unlawfully rejected the applicants’ claims for regularisation, having regard to the Rajasthan High Court’s directions, the AIIMS resolutions, and the law on regularisation.

Whether the respondents could terminate the applicants’ services in the circumstances of the case.

The Tribunal considered the principles in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, which disapproves backdoor appointments but recognises a one-time regularisation measure for qualifying employees who have worked for at least ten years in duly sanctioned posts; and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, which clarifies the conditions for that measure, including continuous service for ten years without interim judicial protection.

It also relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand for the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments and for the proposition that long, continuous service following a selection process, performing ongoing functions, may warrant fair consideration of regularisation.

The Tribunal further referred to Article 14, holding that contractual terms do not waive an employee’s fundamental right to challenge State action as arbitrary.

The Rajasthan High Court’s findings that the applicants were selected through open-market competition and were not backdoor entrants, and its directions to consider the specified AIIMS resolutions and precedent, also informed the decision.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had entered service through an advertised process involving written examinations and interviews, and therefore their appointments could not be characterised as backdoor entries contrary to Uma Devi.

They had continued to serve from 2014, with their contracts repeatedly extended to meet AIIMS Jodhpur’s operational needs; their service was not attributable solely to interim court orders.

The Tribunal held that the respondents’ reasoning—particularly the absence of a regularisation provision, the contractual terms, and the alleged need for a further selection process—did not adequately address the High Court’s observations, the AIIMS resolutions, or the relevant precedent.

It also concluded that the applicants had more than ten years’ service when their termination orders were issued.

No order as to costs was made.