State must consider regularizing long-term contractual employees to prevent unconstitutional ad-hocism in public employment.

The Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer (Electrical Engineering) on a contractual basis on November 21, 2010, under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2004 and 2012

He has been continuously performing his duties at Government Polytechnic, Mahasamund, for approximately 15 years

Despite his long tenure, his services were not regularized, whereas he alleged that similarly situated persons were regularized in 2018

The Petitioner filed a representation for regularization (Annexure P-4) to Respondent No. 2, which remained pending

Consequently, the Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for the authorities to consider his candidature for regularization in light of the Division Bench judgment in Gopi Sao and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a time-bound consideration for regularization of his services based on his continuous contractual employment since 2010

2. Whether the State’s continued reliance on "ad-hocism" and contractual engagement for perennial roles violates the constitutional obligations of a "constitutional employer"

The Court primarily relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, which addressed the regularization of employees completing 10 years of service

It further cited Jaggo v. Union of India, emphasizing that the State must provide stable employment for roles integral to an organization’s functioning

The Court invoked Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, which held that the State cannot deny regularization after continuing services on sanctioned posts for over a decade

Finally, the Court relied on Dharam Singh v. State of UP, which characterized the State as a "constitutional employer" under Articles 14, 16, and 21, asserting that "ad-hocism" offends the promise of equal protection and that perennial work must be organized on a sanctioned footing

The Court analyzed the Petitioner’s 15-year tenure against the evolving jurisprudence regarding temporary and contractual employment in the public sector

It noted that the Petitioner was not pressing the petition on merits but was seeking a direction for the disposal of his pending representation

The Court observed that the State cannot evade its regular employment obligations by utilizing "temporary labels" for work that is recurring and perennial

By referencing Dharam Singh, the Court emphasized that justice in such cases requires clear duties and fixed timelines to prevent "administrative drift" and the erosion of employee dignity

Consequently, the Court determined that the Petitioner’s long-term service necessitated a formal review by the authorities in alignment with State circulars (specifically the circular dated March 5, 2008) and the cited judicial precedents

It granted the Petitioner liberty to submit a fresh, comprehensive representation to Respondent No. 2

The Court directed Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide upon the representation, specifically accounting for the Petitioner’s total length of service and the legal principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the regularization of temporary employees

The decision must be rendered expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the representation