State must consider regularizing long-term temporary employees per Supreme Court mandates against prolonged ad-hocism.

The petitioner was appointed as a Peon at Government Primary School, Bazarpara Jarhi, on 04.10.2014.

From 12.10.2017, she was directed to serve as a Part-time Sweeper.

Seeking regularization of her service, she submitted representations to the District Education Officer and Chief Executive Officer, which were rejected via an order dated 03.02.2022.

The petitioner filed the present writ petition to set aside the rejection and seek directions for regularization, asserting her continuous service on a contractual/temporary basis since 2014.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh consideration of her claim for regularization in light of recent Supreme Court precedents despite a prior administrative rejection.

The Court relied on the principle that the State is a "constitutional employer" under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the doctrine from Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Others, regarding the regularization of employees who have completed 10 years of service.

The Court further cited Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), which mandates fair and stable employment practices.

Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026), which prohibits the State from using "contractual engagement" nomenclature to deny regularization for long-term service.

Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of UP & Anr. (2025), which deprecated the culture of "ad-hocism" and held that perennial work must be reflected in sanctioned posts rather than precarious labels.

The Court observed that the petitioner has been working continuously since 2014.

The Court reasoned that while her claim was rejected in 2022, subsequent developments in law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasize that the State cannot balance budgets at the expense of those performing basic and recurring public functions.

The Court applied the reasoning from Dharam Singh, noting that "ad-hocism" thrives on opaque administration and that the State must explain why it prefers precarious engagement over sanctioned posts for perennial work.

The Court found that the petitioner’s long-term service necessitated a re-evaluation of her claim for regularization based on the current legal landscape and the State's own circular dated 05.03.2008.

The Court directed the concerned authority to decide on the representation within four months, taking into account the petitioner’s length of service and the cited Supreme Court decisions regarding the regularization of temporary/daily wage employees.