Regularization of service is impermissible for part-time employees absent sanctioned posts and recruitment rule compliance.

The six applicants were engaged as Part-Time Social Guides (PTSG) and Social Guides (SG) at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi

The PTSG position is a voluntary role under a welfare scheme

The applicants challenged an order dated 27.07.2020 which sought to disengage them and replace their services with freshers or outsourced agencies

They sought regularization into the regular cadre based on a committee recommendation dated 22.07.2016, and requested to be treated as full-time employees with commensurate benefits

The respondents contended that the matter was squarely covered by a previous decision of the Tribunal in Naveen Kumar Maithani v. UOI & Ors.

1. Whether the applicants, engaged as Part-Time Social Guides, are entitled to regularization and absorption into the regular cadre of AIIMS

2. Whether the respondents can legally replace the applicants’ services with freshers or outsourced staff while work is still available

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, which mandates that for regularization, the initial appointment must be made by a competent authority against a sanctioned post

Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No. 10519 of 2020, regarding the limits of judicial interference in regularization

Classification of PTSGs as "semi-skilled workers" under the Minimum Wages criteria per the Standing Finance Committee order dated 20.01.2022

Naveen Kumar Maithani v. UOI & Ors. (O.A. No. 2507/2022)

The Tribunal observed that there was nothing on record to demonstrate that "Part-Time Social Guide" is a sanctioned post within the Recruitment Rules (RRs) of AIIMS

Applying the Umadevi doctrine, the court held that the absence of a sanctioned post and a formal appointment process by a competent authority precludes the claim for regularisation

While a 2016 Committee suggested that PTSG duties are similar to Medical Record Attendants, it noted that such regularization was subject to the fulfillment of RRs and the availability of vacant posts, which were not established here

The Tribunal balanced this by observing that the applicants should not be arbitrarily replaced by freshers or outsourced staff

It held that if the requirement for work persists, the existing staff should be allowed to continue until regular appointments are conducted through the proper channel

The applicants are allowed to continue in their current roles as per institutional requirements until regular appointments are made through regular channels

The Tribunal further clarified that this judgment would not prevent the respondents from undertaking a regularization scheme in the future if it conforms to policy decisions and Recruitment Rules

All pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of, and no costs were awarded