State's selective denial of regularization to similarly situated workers after a Cabinet policy decision violates Article 14.

The State of Assam engaged a large number of Muster Roll (MR) and Work Charged (WC) workers since 1980

In 1983 and 1995, the State issued directives to regularize those with long service, eventually setting a cut-off date of April 1, 1993

In July 2005, the State Cabinet decided to regularize WC/MR workers engaged before the cut-off, creating over 30,000 posts for this purpose

Approximately 30,000 workers were regularized, but the appellants were excluded due to clerical errors, spelling mistakes, and oversight

Despite State undertakings to the High Court to resolve these omissions, the Finance Department issued a 2012 O.M. halting further regularization, citing the restrictive judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi

A Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court quashed the 2012 O.M., but a Division Bench reversed this, holding that the lack of sanctioned posts barred regularization under Umadevi

1. Whether the State can deny regularization to a left-out group of workers while having granted the same benefit to 30,000 similarly situated employees under the 2005 Cabinet decision

2. Whether the decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi acts as a blanket embargo against regularizing employees who were not initially appointed against sanctioned posts when the State itself created posts for a specific class

3. Whether the State, as a "Model Employer," can resile from solemn undertakings given to a Constitutional Court

Article 14 of the Constitution, which ensures equality and prohibits arbitrary state action against similarly situated persons

The exception to the bar on regularization found in Paragraph 53 of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), as clarified in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010), which allows a "one-time measure" for irregular appointments with 10 years of service

Doctrine of "Legitimate Expectation" from National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan

Principle of the "Model Employer" established in Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2025) and Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), which mandates fairness and prohibits the exploitation of temporary workers for perennial tasks

The appellants were not seeking a new mandate for regularization but were requesting the non-discriminatory application of the 2005 Cabinet policy

Since the State had already regularized 30,000 workers by creating posts, excluding the appellants—who were identical in status and service length—solely due to the State’s own clerical errors was "manifestly arbitrary"

Umadevi was not intended to "weaponize" procedural formalities against long-serving employees performing essential state functions

The State’s conduct in 2012 (seeking court leave to implement a policy it already committed to) was viewed as an unwarranted abdication of executive authority

By making categorical representations to the High Court and then resiling via the 2012 O.M., the State violated the principles of a Model Employer and hit the threshold of "approbate and reprobate"

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment and restored the Single Judge's order, directing the State to identify eligible appellants, create supernumerary posts, and grant all consequential benefits, including pay fixation, continuity of service, and full pensionary/retiral benefits within one year