Temporary judicial staff appointed under service rules have no right to regularisation or permanent absorption.

The petitioners were appointed as Steno-Typists, Typists, and Junior Assistants in the District Judiciary across Tamil Nadu on a temporary basis under Rule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules.

These appointments were made to meet administrative exigencies, and the petitioners served in different spells with breaks in service, some exceeding ten to fifteen years.

While some petitioners were terminated, others continued to serve and sought reinstatement, regularisation, or permanent absorption into sanctioned posts in the regular time scale of pay.

The respondents contended that the appointments were purely temporary, made against non-sanctioned posts, and were not through regular recruitment processes.

1. Whether temporary Steno-Typists, Typists, and Junior Assistants appointed under Rule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules are entitled to regularisation or permanent absorption in the Judicial Department.

The Court primarily applied the constitutional principles of equal opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Constitution Bench judgment in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which held that appointments to public posts must strictly follow the constitutional scheme and that regularisation cannot be used to bypass regular recruitment rules.

State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal (2011) 2 SCC 429, which established that High Courts under Article 226 cannot issue directions for regularisation unless the initial appointment was made via a regular, open competitive process against sanctioned vacant posts.

Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts (2014) 14 SCC 50, which mandates strict adherence to recruitment norms in judicial administration.

Rule 16(e)(i) explicitly stipulates that temporary appointees have no preferential claim to future appointments and are liable to be terminated without notice.

The Court emphasized that regularisation of "back-door" entries violates the fundamental rights of meritorious candidates and the equality clause of the Constitution.

The petitioners accepted their appointments knowing the temporary nature of the service and therefore cannot now claim permanency.

The Court observed that sympathy or long periods of service are insufficient grounds for regularisation in the absence of sanctioned posts and a legal right.

The Court further clarified that individual discretionary orders from higher courts based on specific facts cannot be treated as precedents to dilute the mandate of the Umadevi case.

The writ petitions were disposed of with directions that the Judicial Department must initiate proactive action to fill sanctioned posts through regular annual recruitment processes; terminated or serving temporary employees shall be permitted to participate in future recruitment; and the state may consider granting age relaxation for such candidates.