Repeated seasonal engagement does not confer a right to regularisation absent sanctioned permanent posts.

The 38 petitioners had been engaged as seasonal clerks, peons and sweepers by the Haj Committee of India (HCoI), and claimed to have worked across multiple Haj seasons since 2009.

HCoI terminated their services by order dated 25 November 2023.

They challenged the termination and sought continued employment, contending, among other things, that their work was continuous and that they should not be replaced by other contractual workers.

During the petition, the Court directed HCoI to consider the petitioners, according to seniority, if it decided to engage seasonal employees.

The petitioners also alleged that HCoI had invited applications for fresh workers in breach of that order; the contempt petition arising from that allegation was disposed of after an unconditional apology and an assurance of compliance.

Whether the petitioners’ repeated engagement as seasonal employees created a legal right to continued employment or regularisation.

Whether the termination was unlawful because HCoI intended to engage other workers for the same or similar work.

Section 16(5) of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 empowers the Committee, with the Central Government’s prior sanction, to employ officers and employees as necessary; Section 44(2)(vi) empowers the Central Government to make rules concerning the terms and conditions of service of the Committee’s employees.

Rule 16 of the Haj Committee Rules, 2002 provides for temporary appointments and contemplates that posts may be made permanent, but does not authorise regularisation of seasonal employees.

The Court also relied on State of Maharashtra v. Anita, (2016) 8 SCC 293, for the principle that contractual appointment does not confer a right or interest in permanent government service, and on Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. UT, Chandigarh, (2004) 2 SCC 130, for the principle that sympathy cannot substitute for an established legal right.

Article 226 jurisdiction does not permit relief contrary to applicable statutory provisions.

The Court found that the petitioners’ appointments were seasonal and that the applicable Recruitment Rules distinguished seasonal clerks from lower division clerks; repeated engagement across seasons did not convert the former into permanent posts or confer a right to regularisation.

It further noted HCoI’s affidavit stating that no seasonal clerks were being recruited for the Mumbai Division, which was adequately staffed; the advertised posts related to work in New Delhi and different requirements. The Court therefore found no service-rule violation arising from the alleged recruitment of replacement workers.

Although a Committee resolution proposing re-engagement if the petitioners withdrew their petition was described as revealing an “arm-twisting strategy,” it did not establish a legal right to appointment or regularisation.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.