Statutory recruitment rules supersede claims for regularization based on long-term continuous casual service.

The petitioner was engaged as a Peon (Class-IV) in the Nalanda Collectorate on a daily-wage/temporary basis between 1994 and 1996 and claimed to have rendered over 25–30 years of continuous service

His name was included in a 2001 panel for regular appointment

The petitioner sought regularization of his services, citing long tenure and Supreme Court precedents regarding permanent nature of work

His representation was rejected by the Establishment Deputy Collector, Nalanda, via Memo No. 327 dated 24.02.2026, based on a 2020 government circular

The petitioner challenged this rejection, seeking a mandamus for regularization and the quashing of the memo

1. Whether the petitioner has a legitimate right to be regularized based on his long-term continuous service and inclusion in the 2001 panel

2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim via Memo No. 327 was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 given the enactment of new recruitment rules in 2023

Bihar Office Attendant/Attendant (Special) (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2023, which mandate that all Group-D appointments must occur through a formal selection process conducted by a Commission

The court acknowledged the principles of regularization for long-term employees discussed in Jaggu vs Union of India (SLP (C) No. 5580 of 2024) and Shripal and Another Vs Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad (Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024), which advocate for fairness toward long-serving temporary staff

The court noted the precedent of the Kapil Kumar case, which prompted the state to frame the 2023 Rules

The court analyzed the impact of the 2023 Rules on the petitioner’s claim. It noted that the petitioner's reliance on the 2001 panel was insufficient because such panels were typically valid for only one year

The court found that the 2023 Rules superseded previous informal or technical arrangements, requiring a competitive selection process through a Commission for all Group-D posts

The court observed that the State had already provided a mechanism for employees in the petitioner’s position by offering relaxations in age and educational qualifications for the new selection process

The court reasoned that the petitioner could not bypass the statutory recruitment process to seek direct regularization through a writ of mandamus

The court concluded that since the law now requires Group-D appointments to be made via a Commission—and since the state provided age and qualification relaxations to accommodate experienced workers—the petitioner’s request for regularization outside this framework could not be granted