Successive temporary engagements as a substitute do not confer a legal right to continuation or regularization.

The applicant was engaged as a substitute Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) Mail Carrier/Mail Distributor at the Kusumhi Branch Post Office starting April 1, 2017

His engagement was based on successive, fixed-term orders of 88 days each, separated by brief "artificial breaks"

Upon the expiry of his last term on March 18, 2019, the respondents discontinued his engagement despite the alleged continued availability of work and the engagement of other temporary staff

The applicant challenged this discontinuation, seeking a direction to continue in service until a regular appointment is made

The respondents contended that the engagement was purely contractual, stop-gap, and conferred no right to permanency

1. Whether repeated temporary engagements as a substitute for fixed durations confer a legal right to continuity of service or regularisation

2. Whether a temporary or substitute employee has a legal right to prevent the employer from replacing them with another temporary arrangement when the initial engagement was conditional and time-bound

The Tribunal primarily applied the Constitutional principles of public employment under Articles 14 and 16

It relied heavily on the landmark precedent of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which established that temporary, contractual, or ad-hoc employees do not acquire a right to regularisation or continuation merely by length of service unless supported by statutory rules

Furthermore, the Tribunal applied the principle that mala fides must be specifically pleaded and proved with credible evidence to vitiate an administrative action

The Tribunal reasoned that each of the applicant's 88-day engagements constituted a separate, independent contract governed by specific terms that the applicant had voluntarily accepted

The Tribunal found that the "artificial breaks" did not create a right to continuity because there was no statutory provision or rule overriding the express conditions of the temporary engagement

Regarding the replacement of one temporary hand by another, the Tribunal observed that since the applicant was a "substitute" rather than a regular appointee, his presence was contingent upon administrative necessity

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been out of service since 2019, further weakening his claim for a mandatory injunction for continuation

The court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate any violation of the constitutional scheme of employment as defined in Umadevi, as he lacked a vested legal right to remain in a post held dehors the recruitment rules

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit. However, the Tribunal granted the applicant liberty to participate in any future regular recruitment process, where his candidature must be considered according to applicable rules without preference for his past temporary service