Under the 1979 Regularisation Rules, regularisation takes effect only from the appointment order.

The petitioner was appointed as a Munshi on ad hoc basis on 28 March 1992 and continued to work on the regular pay scale, receiving increments and ACP benefits, but remained unregularized.

His name appeared at Serial No. 74 in the seniority list of ad hoc employees prepared on 28 September 2001.

Following the Third Amendment to the U.P. Regularization of Ad Hoc Appointments (on Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, which came into force on 20 December 2001, the petitioner claimed eligibility for regularization.

He was ultimately regularized by order dated 28 April 2016, with effect only from the date of that order.

The petitioner challenged the order to the extent that it denied him retrospective regularization from his initial appointment dated 28 March 1992, or alternatively from 20 December 2001, the date on which the Third Amendment Rules came into force.

He also relied on the subsequent regularization of another employee, Sri Ramakant Tiwari, from the date of his initial joining.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization with retrospective effect from his initial ad hoc appointment dated 28 March 1992 or from the date of his eligibility under the Third Amendment Rules, i.e., 20 December 2001?

Whether, under the 1979 Rules as amended, eligibility for regularization automatically created a right to immediate or retrospective regularization?

Whether the petitioner could claim retrospective regularization on the basis of the subsequent benefit allegedly granted to another similarly situated employee?

The Court applied Rules 4 to 8 of the U.P. Regularization of Ad Hoc Appointments (on Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, as amended in 2001.

Rule 4 prescribed eligibility for consideration of regularization, including ad hoc appointment on or before 30 June 1998, possession of the requisite qualifications, and completion of three years’ service; it also required preparation of an eligibility list, consideration by a Selection Committee, and selection in order of seniority.

Rule 5 required appointments to be made from the selected list as vacancies became available, while Rule 7 expressly provided that seniority would accrue only from the date of appointment after selection under the Rules.

The Court held that eligibility for consideration did not amount to an automatic or vested right to regularization, and that regularization could be made only against available vacancies after following the prescribed procedure.

The Court also relied on Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 31155 of 2023, for the principle that ad hoc, work-charged, or temporary service rendered without regular selection is distinct from regular service and does not automatically carry the incidents of regular appointment.

The petitioner satisfied the eligibility requirements introduced by the 2001 amendment, but the statutory scheme required more than eligibility: the appointing authority had to prepare a seniority-based list, obtain consideration by the Selection Committee, and make appointments from the selected list against available vacancies.

Since the Rules did not provide for automatic regularization upon completion of the eligibility conditions, the petitioner acquired no right to retrospective regularization from either 28 March 1992 or 20 December 2001.

Rule 7 further expressly limited seniority to the date of appointment after selection, supporting the conclusion that the regularization order could not operate from the earlier period of ad hoc service.

The Court also rejected reliance on Ramakant Tiwari’s case, holding that a claim based on an allegedly erroneous or isolated benefit granted to another employee could not establish a right to “negative parity,” particularly when the governing Rules contained no authority for retrospective regularization.

Under the 1979 Rules, as amended, regularization was effective only from the date of the appointment order issued after selection and availability of a vacancy.

The writ petition challenging the order dated 28 April 2016 was therefore dismissed, and the claim for retrospective regularization and parity with another employee was rejected.