Regularization of daily wage appointments made dehors recruitment rules violates the constitutional scheme of public employment.

The State of Tamil Nadu filed intra-court appeals against a common writ order dated September 22, 2017, which had presumably directed the regularization of the respondents' services.

The respondents were engaged as Sweepers on a daily wage basis.

The State contended that the respondents had not completed 10 years of service as of January 1, 2006, and therefore did not meet the criteria for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.22.

The matter was brought before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court to determine the legality of regularizing such "back-door" appointments.

1. Whether daily wage employees who entered service without following due process are entitled to regularization and permanent absorption.

2. Whether the respondents’ service could be regularized given they had not completed 10 years of service as of the cutoff date.

The Court applied the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It relied heavily on the Constitution Bench decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), which held that appointments made in violation of statutory rules are a nullity and cannot be regularized.

The Court further cited Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, establishing that any appointment without proper advertisement and open competition is illegal.

M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav, which asserted that "regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment" and those who enter through the "back door" must leave the same way.

The Court reasoned that all public appointments must follow the constitutional scheme of open competitive selection to protect the fundamental rights of aspiring candidates.

It observed that the respondents were engaged as casual laborers without following recruitment rules or due process.

Applying the Umadevi principle, the Court found that allowing regularization for such temporary/contractual staff would "dishonor the constitutional scheme".

Furthermore, even under the government’s own (now withdrawn) G.O.Ms.No.22, the respondents failed to meet the 10-year service requirement as of January 1, 2006.

The Court specifically noted that a previous contrary Division Bench order (W.A. 606/2019) did not constitute a binding precedent because it failed to discuss the legal principles settled by the Supreme Court in Umadevi.

The Division Bench set aside the Writ Court’s common order dated September 22, 2017, and allowed the State’s appeals.

The holding affirms that fundamental rights under Article 16 are infringed by regularizing illegal appointments and that the judiciary should not exercise jurisdiction based on "misplaced sympathy".