Temporary status under the 1993 Scheme does not confer an automatic right to regularisation.

The petitioners, casual labourers engaged by North-Eastern Hill University (NEHU) in skilled and semi-skilled roles, sought regularisation under the Government of India’s “Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993” (“1993 Scheme”).

NEHU’s order dated 24 February 2020 purportedly conferred temporary status upon them with retrospective effect from 1 September 1993.

After their representations remained unresolved, the petitioners filed WP(C) No. 103 of 2023, in which the Court directed the respondents to dispose of the representations within four months.

NEHU thereafter issued the impugned letter dated 12 September 2023, stating that it could not regularise the petitioners on its own and that the matter had been referred to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the University Grants Commission (UGC).

The UGC argued that the 1993 Scheme was a one-time measure applicable to casual labourers engaged directly by Government of India departments and their attached or subordinate offices, and did not automatically extend to an autonomous statutory university.

Whether casual labourers with temporary status engaged by an autonomous statutory university, such as NEHU, were covered by or entitled to benefits under the 1993 Scheme.

Whether the extension or adoption of the 1993 Scheme through the UGC created an enforceable or vested right in the petitioners to regularisation.

Whether NEHU could independently regularise the petitioners against the re-designated MTS/erstwhile Group-D posts despite the abolition of Group-D posts, applicable recruitment requirements, and the petitioners’ alleged lack of requisite qualifications.

The Court applied the 1993 Scheme, particularly paragraph 3, which limited its application to casual labourers employed in Ministries/Departments of the Government of India and their attached or subordinate offices.

Paragraph 4 provided for conferment of temporary status on eligible casual labourers but expressly stated that temporary status did not bring them onto the permanent establishment unless they were selected through the regular selection process for Group-D posts.

Paragraph 5(vi) prescribed certain benefits after three years of continuous service following conferment of temporary status, while paragraph 8(i) contemplated filling two out of every three Group-D vacancies from casual workers with temporary status, subject to the extant recruitment rules and prescribed qualifications.

The Court also relied on DoPT Office Memorandum dated 30 April 2010, issued pursuant to the Sixth Pay Commission, under which existing Group-D posts were upgraded to Group-C posts, no further recruitment was to be made to Group-D posts, and the minimum qualification was generally 10th pass or ITI equivalent; autonomous and statutory bodies could adopt the framework with approval of the competent authority under their rules or statutes.

The governing principle was that temporary status did not, by itself, confer an automatic or unconditional right to regularisation, particularly where the relevant posts had ceased to exist and the applicable recruitment rules and qualifications were not satisfied.

The Court found that the 1993 Scheme did not itself mandate automatic regularisation: temporary status only entitled eligible casual labourers to the benefits specified in the Scheme, and entry into the permanent establishment remained subject to regular selection against available posts and compliance with recruitment rules.

Although the Scheme had been extended to NEHU through the UGC and temporary status had been granted to the petitioners, the Court held that the subsequent abolition of Group-D posts and their conversion into Group-C/MTS posts made regularisation in the original cadre structurally impossible.

NEHU also lacked authority to unilaterally regularise the petitioners without appropriate directions or approval from the DoPT, UGC, or Ministry of Education.

The University had referred the matter to the competent authorities, but those efforts did not result in approval.

Further, the petitioners did not possess the qualifications prescribed for the relevant Group-C/MTS posts, which independently prevented their absorption into those posts.

Consequently, long and continuous service, temporary status, or alleged legitimate expectation could not override the statutory and administrative framework governing sanctioned posts, recruitment rules, and minimum qualifications.

Temporary status did not automatically confer permanent employment, NEHU could not regularise them independently in the absence of competent-authority approval and available posts, and the abolition of Group-D posts together with the petitioners’ lack of the requisite qualifications defeated their claim for absorption as MTS/Group-C employees.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed and disposed of, with no direction for regularisation or other relief.