Regularization Cannot Be Granted for Non-Existent Posts or in Violation of Constitutional Recruitment Schemes

The respondents (1-9) were engaged as Overhead Tank Operators, Motor Operators, and Computer Operators on a consolidated pay basis by various Village Panchayats and a Municipality that were later merged into the Erode City Municipal Corporation in 2012.

The respondents sought regularisation of their services upon completion of three years of service, relying on a Division Bench judgment (W.A.No.1615 of 2018) and specific Government Orders (G.O.s).

The Writ Court allowed their petition without recording specific factual findings.

The Appellant (Corporation) challenged this, contending that the posts in question were eliminated via G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 20.10.2022, and that the precedents relied upon involved different factual matrices (NMR daily wage workers under contempt threats).

1. Whether the respondents, appointed on a consolidated pay basis to posts that were subsequently abolished by a policy decision, are entitled to regularisation of service

2. Whether the Writ Court erred in applying precedents without considering factual distinctions or the constitutional principles governing public employment

The Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) mandates that public appointments must adhere to Service Rules and that illegal or irregular appointments cannot be regularised if they bypass open competitive processes.

State of Rajasthan v. Dayalal (2011) held that High Courts cannot issue directions for regularisation under Article 226 unless the initial appointment was made against a sanctioned vacant post through a regular recruitment process.

The Court emphasized that judgments running counter to Uma Devi lose their status as precedents.

The Court reasoned that the Writ Court failed to examine the specific facts and legal eligibility of the respondents, merely relying on a prior Division Bench order.

Upon review, the Court found that the respondents were consolidated pay employees and the posts they held (Motor/Tank Operators) had been eliminated by the Government’s policy decision in G.O.Ms.152 dated 20.10.2022; thus, no regularisation can occur in non-existing posts.

The Court noted that the G.O. (2D) No. 64 relied upon by the respondents was not a general policy of regularisation but a "special case" concession made by the Government to avoid contempt proceedings, which does not constitute a valid legal precedent.

The Court held that granting regularisation to backdoor entries infringes upon the rights of meritorious candidates and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The High Court set aside the Writ Court’s order dated 14.08.2025 and allowed the Writ Appeal.

The Corporation may consider giving weightage or age relaxation to such long-serving temporary employees in future regular selection processes.