1
Digitally
signed by
2026:CGHC:17639
YOGESH
YOGESH TIWARI
TIWARI Date: AFR
2026.04.17
19:05:20
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
+0530
Order reserved on : 01.04.2026
Order delivered on : 17.04.2026
WPS No. 1465 of 2023
1. Smt. Sumitra Mallick W/o Shri Subhash Mallick, Aged about 43
years, Presently posted as Demonstrator (contractual), at Govt.
Nursing College, Raipur, Resident of : B.M.Y. Shikshit Nagar,
Charodha, P.S. Bhilai District - Durg C.G.
2. Smt. Priyanaka P. Ashwagan W/o Dr. Prashant John Ashawan, Aged
about 40 years, Presently posted as Demonstrator (contractual), At
Govt. Nursing College Raipur, Resident of: D-23, Bhavana Nagar,
Khamardih Main Road, Shankar Nagar, P.S. Raipur, Telibanda, District -
Raipur CG.
3.Smt. Shalini Agrawal, age-39 years. W/o Mr. Ravi Kumar Agrawal,
Jiwaji Heights, Flat no. 304, Kapil Nagar Chowk, Sarkanda Bilaspur
(CG)
4. Smt. Anima Lakra, W/o Dr. Rajesh Sachin Panna, aged about 40
years R/o 162/B, Ramkirshna Nagar, Mopka Bilaspur CG
------Petitioners
2
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Ministry of Health and
Medical Education Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa
Raipur District Raipur (CG)
2. The Director, Directorate of Medical Education Old Nurses Hostel,
DKS Bhavan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
WPS No. 3647 of 2023
1. Smt. Vidya P. Tandy W/o Shri Sunil Tandy, Aged about 50 years,
Presently posted as Demonstrator (contractual), at Govt. Nursing
College, Ambikapur, Permanent Resident of: near Christian Hospital
Dhamtari P.S. Dhamtari District - Dhamtari (C.G.)
2. Smt. Anju Bodalkar W/o Mr. Nikhil Kumar Bodalkar, Aged about 39
years, Presently posted as - Demonstrator, (contractual), At Govt.
Nursing College Jagdalpur, Resident of: MIG First floor 08, Housing
board colonly, Aghanpur, Dharmpura, Jagdalpur, P.S. Jagdalpur
District-Bastar (C.G)
3. Smt. Asha Sahu W/o Mr. G.G. Sahu, Aged About - 40 years,
Presently posted as - Demonstrator, (contractual), At Govt. Nursing
College Jagdalpur, Resident of: MIG 34 GF, Housing Board Colony,
Aghanpur, Dharmpura, Jagdalpur, P.S. Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G)
4. Smt. Anita Rani Gupta, W/o Mr. Harsh Gupta, Aged About -40 years,
Presently posted as Demonstrator, (contractual), At Govt. Nursing
3
College Jagdalpur Resident of: Flat No. 2/36, 440, Housing Board
Colony, Lalbagh, Jagdalpur, P.S. Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G)
5. Smt. Vidya Ansh W/o Ansh Raghavan, Aged About - 42 years,
Presently posted as Demonstrator, (contractual), At Govt. Nursing
College, Jagdalpur, Resident of: Sanjay Gandhi Ward 34, opposite to
Manke furniture, Bhodhgat road Jagdalpur, P.S. Jagdalpur District-
Bastar (C.G).
6. Smt. Priyanka Shirke W/o Dhushyant Meshram, Aged About 38
years Presently posted as Demonstrator, (contractual), At Govt.
Nursing College, Jagdalpur Resident of: MIG 11, Housing Board
Colony, Aghanpur, Dharmpura Jagdalpur, P.S. Jagdalpur District-
Bastar (C.G)
7. Miss Anupa Tirkey as D/o Shri S. Tirkey, Aged About - 37 years,
Presently posted Demonstrator (contractual), at Govt. Nursing College,
Ambikapur, Resident of: Namnakala, Patpariya, Ambikapur, P.S.
Gandhinagar District- Sarguja (C.G).
8. Smt. Purnima Shukla W/o Shri Devendra Pathak, Aged about 39
years, Presently posted as - Demonstrator (contractual), at Govt.
Nursing College, Ambikapur, Resident of: Ram Mandir Road
Brahampara Ambikapur, P.S. Kotwali, District Sarguja (C.G).
------Petitioners
Versus
4
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Ministry of Health and
Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District
Raipur (CG)
2. Directorate of Medical Education Old Nurses Hostel, DKS Bhavan,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through: The Secretary,
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Near
Bhagat Singh Square, District -Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate
For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government
Advocate with Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel
Lawyer
For CGPSC : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
CAV Order
1. Heard Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the
respective petitioners as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned
Government Advocate with Mr. Arpit Agrawal, learned Panel
Lawyer appearing for the State and Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay,
learned counsel appearing for the CGPSC.
2. Since a common question of law and fact is involved in all both
5
the writ petitions, they were clubbed together, heard analogously
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, and are being
decided by this common order.
3. The grievances raised by all the petitioners in the present writ
petitions are essentially common in nature. The petitioners are
qualified individuals who were appointed as Demonstrators in
various Government Nursing and Government Polytechnic
Colleges under the State after following due process of law.
Although their initial appointment was made on a contractual
basis for a period of one year, the petitioners have continuously
discharged their duties for more than 16-17 years by virtue of
periodic extensions granted by the respondent authorities.
4. According to the petitioners, their appointments were made
against sanctioned posts and after proper selection procedure,
and they have been rendering satisfactory services without any
complaint. Despite their long and continuous service, the
respondent authorities have neither framed any policy nor taken
any steps for their regularization/absorption against regular posts.
The petitioners have made several representations before the
competent authorities seeking regularization of their services;
however, no action has been taken thereon.
5. Thus, in sum and substance, the core grievance of all the
petitioners is that despite being eligible and having rendered long
years of continuous service, they are being denied consideration
6
for absorption/regularization, which is arbitrary, discriminatory, and
violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.
6. By way of the present petitions, the petitioners have challenged
the order dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure P-1), whereby the
respondent State has failed to consider the case of the petitioners
for regularization and has continued its arbitrary and non-
considerate approach. The impugned action is contrary to the
settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as the Division Bench of this Court. The petitioners have,
therefore, sought quashment of the impugned order and issuance
of appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to consider
and grant regularization/absorption to the petitioners on the
regular posts in accordance with law.
7. In both the writ petitions being WPS No.1465/2023 and WPS
No.3647/2023, the petitioners have prayed for similar reliefs,
which are as under :-
"A. May, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing
the respondents to produce all the relevant
records pertaining to the case of petitioner, if
the Hon'ble Court may so desire.
B. May this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
Quash the order dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure
P-1) and direct the Respondents to frame a
policy for regularization of the contractual
7
employees in light of the Judgment rendered
by the Apex Court in Uma devi Case.
C. May, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to
absorb/ regularize the services in the regular
post with all consequential benefits.
D. May, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Issue
any other order or orders, writ or writs,
direction or directions as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit.
E. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of
case.
F. Cost of the petition may also be awarded."
8. Brief consolidated facts of this batch of writ petitions are that: the
State of Chhattisgarh came into existence on 01.11.2000 upon its
bifurcation from the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh.
Thereafter, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of
the Constitution of India, the State framed various service rules,
including the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam,
2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2004"), governing
contractual appointments under the State. The said Rules, inter
alia, prescribe the eligibility criteria, mode and manner of
selection, and constitution of the Selection Committee for such
appointments. At the relevant point of time, the State had
established several Government Nursing Colleges, including
8
newly established institutions, wherein posts of Demonstrators
were sanctioned. During the years 2008-2009, advertisements
were issued inviting applications from eligible candidates for
appointment to the said posts. In response to advertisements, a
large number of candidates participated in the selection process.
9. The petitioners, being eligible and duly qualified, applied for the
said posts and participated in the selection process. Their
candidature was scrutinized by the competent authorities, and
they were called for interview. The selection process was
conducted by duly constituted Selection Committees comprising
senior officers and subject experts, including officers from the
Directorate of Medical Education and Principals of Nursing
Colleges. The petitioners were selected on the basis of their merit
and performance in the interview, in accordance with the
applicable rules and reservation policy.
10. Pursuant to their selection, the petitioners were appointed as
Demonstrators in different Government Nursing Colleges,
including institutions at Ambikapur, Jagdalpur, Raipur and
Bilaspur, during the years 2008-2009. Their appointments were
made against sanctioned posts and initially for a contractual
period of one year, as per the provisions of the Rules of 2004 and
the terms of appointment. As per the applicable conditions of
service, the contractual appointments of the petitioners were
subject to extension upon satisfactory performance. The record
9
indicates that the services of the petitioners were extended from
time to time on yearly or shorter-term basis, based on evaluation
of their performance by the competent authorities. The petitioners
continued to discharge their duties as Demonstrators throughout
this period, and there is nothing on record to indicate any adverse
remarks against them.
11. Over a period of time, the petitioners have rendered continuous
and uninterrupted service for more than 16 to 17 years in their
respective institutions. During the course of their service, certain
amendments were made to the Rules of 2004, including in the
years 2012 and 2019, and the services of the petitioners
continued to be governed under the amended framework. The
extension orders issued to the petitioners from time to time reflect
continuation of their engagement under the prevailing rules. It
further appears from the record that the petitioners were
subjected to conditions similar to those applicable in regular
service, including deductions towards schemes such as Life
Insurance or Provident Fund, as provided under the terms of their
contractual engagement. The petitioners continued in service
during the said period, including during the COVID-19 pandemic,
and discharged their duties in the respective institutions. Their
services have been utilized by the State continuously against the
sanctioned posts of Demonstrators.
12. At various points of time, representations were submitted by the
10
petitioners and similarly situated contractual employees seeking
consideration for regularization/absorption in service, in view of
their long tenure and continuous engagement. The record further
indicates that issues relating to regularization of contractual
employees had also arisen in other cases before this Court,
wherein directions were issued for consideration of such claims. It
is also borne out from the record that certain communications and
deliberations took place at the departmental level regarding the
issue of regularization of contractual employees. However, no
comprehensive policy or statutory framework for regularization
was brought into force by the State.
13. Subsequently, the representations submitted by the petitioners
came to be considered by the respondent authorities and were
rejected vide order dated 29.12.2022, primarily on the ground that
there exists no provision or rule enabling regularization of
contractual employees. The record further indicates that the
services of the petitioners have continued to be extended even
after the said rejection order, by issuance of extension orders for
specified periods, and as per the latest extensions, the petitioners
have continued in service up to the year 2022-2023 and
thereafter. It has also been brought on record that the petitioners
are continuing to work on the posts of Demonstrators as on date,
and by virtue of successive extensions, they have completed
more than one and a half decades of service under the State
without any break.
11
14. The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the
aforesaid order dated 29.12.2022 and raising issues relating to
continuation and regularization of the petitioners in service.
15. Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respective
petitioners, would submit that the impugned action of the
respondent-State is ex facie arbitrary, illegal, perverse and
contrary to the settled principles of constitutional and service
jurisprudence. It is contended that the rejection of the petitioners'
claim for regularization vide order dated 29.12.2022 is not only
non-speaking and mechanical, but also reflects complete non-
application of mind to the factual matrix as well as binding judicial
precedents governing the field. Learned counsel submits that the
State, being a model employer, cannot adopt an exploitative
approach by continuing the petitioners for nearly two decades and
thereafter deny them legitimate consideration on untenable
grounds.
16. It is further submitted that the initial appointments of the
petitioners were made strictly in accordance with law, pursuant to
a public advertisement, against sanctioned vacant posts, and after
undergoing a due process of selection as prescribed under the
Rules of 2004 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of
India. The petitioners participated in a competitive selection
process, were found eligible and meritorious, and were appointed
only after due scrutiny and interview conducted by duly
12
constituted Selection Committees comprising senior officials and
subject experts. It is thus contended that the appointments of the
petitioners cannot be termed as illegal or backdoor entries, but at
the highest, even if any procedural deficiency such as non-
consultation with the Public Service Commission is assumed, the
same would render the appointments merely irregular and not
illegal.
17. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Siraj Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2020) 19 SCC
480, wherein it has been held that absence of prior concurrence
of the Public Service Commission would not render the
appointment illegal, but at the most irregular. It is submitted that
the said principle is squarely applicable to the case at hand.
Further reliance is placed upon the Constitution Bench judgment
in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v.
State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715, to contend that where
appointments are made after following a procedure consistent
with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, minor procedural
deviations would not vitiate the appointment as illegal.
18. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners have
rendered continuous and uninterrupted service for more than 17-
18 years against sanctioned posts without the benefit of any
interim protection from any court, thereby squarely satisfying the
13
conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 247. Referring to
the said judgment, it is contended that employees who have
worked for more than ten years, whose appointments are not
illegal, and who possess the requisite qualifications, are entitled to
be considered for regularization in terms of the principles laid
down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and
others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is submitted that the petitioners fulfill
all the conditions laid down therein and are therefore entitled to
consideration as a matter of right.
19. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the consistent line of
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which have recognized
the rights of long-serving contractual employees. Reliance is
placed on Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2024)
9 SCC 327, wherein it was held that mere nomenclature of
employment as "temporary" or "contractual" cannot be used to
deny regularization when employees have performed duties akin
to regular employees for long periods. Further reliance is placed
on Jaggo v. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3826, wherein it was held that long and uninterrupted service
extending beyond a decade cannot be ignored merely on the
ground of contractual status.
20. Learned counsel has further relied upon Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and Dharam
14
Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1735, to contend that the State cannot take shelter
under absence of a policy to deny regularization, as such inaction
itself amounts to exploitation and arbitrary exercise of power.
Reliance is also placed upon the recent judgment in Bhola Nath
v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129,
wherein in similar circumstances involving long-serving
contractual employees appointed against sanctioned posts, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court directed regularization and held that the
State cannot deny constitutional protection merely on the ground
of contractual nomenclature.
21. It is next contended that the impugned order is also liable to be
set aside as it is in direct contravention of binding precedents of
this Court. Learned counsel submits that an identical order had
earlier been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Appeal No. 265 of 2017 (Smt. Nidhi Das v. State of
Chhattisgarh and others, decided on 11.12.2018), wherein the
claims of similarly placed Demonstrators were directed to be
considered. It is submitted that despite being aware of the
aforesaid binding precedents, the respondents have passed the
impugned order on identical grounds, which amounts to disregard
of judicial discipline.
22. Finally, learned counsel would submit that the action of the
respondent-State in continuing the petitioners for nearly 18 years,
15
extracting work from them on sanctioned posts, and thereafter
seeking to displace them by fresh recruitment or by
accommodating other persons, is wholly arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that
the petitioners have crossed the upper age limit for alternative
employment and have devoted the prime years of their lives in
service of the State, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reliance is also placed on State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh,
(2017) 1 SCC 148, Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of
Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238, and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v.
Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 15 SCC 236, to contend that the
State cannot exploit employees indefinitely and deny them
security of tenure. On these grounds, it is prayed that the
impugned order be quashed and appropriate directions be issued
to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in
accordance with law.
23. Learned counsel also placed very recent pronouncements of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Sagir and others v.
Nagar Nigam Kanpur, passed in Civil Appeal arising out of
SLP (C) Nos.14760-14762/2024 decided on 16.03.2026,
Abhishek Sharma v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and
others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 342 and Pawan Kumar and
others v. Union of India and others, passed in Civil Appeal
arising out of SLP (C) No.29214/2019 decided on 13.02.2026, to
buttress his submissions.
16
24. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government
Advocate along with Mr. Arpit Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer
appearing for the State, vehemently opposed the submissions
advanced on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions and
submitted that the present writ petitions, being based on identical
facts and seeking similar reliefs, are liable to be dismissed as
being devoid of merit and substance. It is contended that the
petitioners in both petitions have failed to establish any
enforceable legal or statutory right in their favour so as to invoke
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The relief sought, particularly for
regularization and for issuance of a direction to frame a policy, lies
within the exclusive domain of the State and cannot be claimed as
a matter of right.
25. Learned State counsel would submit that in both writ petitions, the
respective petitioners were appointed purely on contractual basis
under the applicable Rules and terms of agreement. Their
appointments were for a fixed tenure, subject to renewal from time
to time, and clearly stipulate that such engagement would
continue only till regular appointments are made or till the
contractual period expires. It is argued that the continuation of the
petitioners for a considerable length of time on the basis of
successive extensions does not confer any vested right upon
them for absorption or regularization. Their service conditions are
governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract
17
Appointment) Rules, 2012 (for short, 'the Rules of 2012') and the
specific terms of their contractual engagement, which
unequivocally negate any claim for permanency. It is further
contended that the petitioners, instead of participating
successfully in the regular recruitment process, are attempting to
secure entry into regular service through judicial intervention,
which is impermissible in law. Learned counsel submits that some
of the petitioners had in fact participated in the direct recruitment
process pursuant to advertisement dated 30.07.2014 after
obtaining No Objection Certificates from the competent authority,
but having failed therein, they are now seeking regularization
through the present writ petitions. Such a course would amount to
permitting backdoor entry into public employment, which is
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and
contrary to the settled principles governing public recruitment.
26. Learned State counsel has placed heavy reliance on the
Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and others,
(2006) 4 SCC 1, particularly paragraphs 47 and 52, to contend
that a temporary or contractual employee, being fully aware of the
nature of appointment, cannot claim regularization as a matter of
right nor invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation. It is further
submitted that issuance of a writ of mandamus presupposes the
existence of a legal right and a corresponding duty on the part of
the State, both of which are conspicuously absent in the present
18
case. Reliance is also placed on Yogesh Mahajan v. Professor
R.C. Deka, (2018) 3 SCC 218 and Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation v. Paramjeet Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 250,
to reiterate that contractual employees do not have any vested
right to continuation or renewal of their contractual engagement.
27. It is lastly submitted that both the writ petitions are premature and
based merely on apprehension, as no adverse order of
termination or discontinuation has been passed against the
petitioners in either case. The petitioners continue to work on
contractual basis subject to extensions, and therefore no cause of
action has arisen warranting interference by this Court. It is also
contended that the petitions suffer from misjoinder of parties and
causes of action, as the petitioners were appointed at different
points of time under separate contractual arrangements. Further,
as per the existing cadre strength, a substantial number of posts
are already filled through regular recruitment, and the remaining
contractual engagements are purely stop-gap arrangements. In
view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that both the writ
petitions deserve to be dismissed.
28. Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC), while
adopting the submissions advanced by the learned Government
Advocate for the State, submits that the role of the Commission is
confined strictly to recruitment to regular posts in accordance with
19
the constitutional mandate and the relevant statutory rules. It is
contended that the petitioners were never appointed through a
selection process conducted by the CGPSC for regular
appointment, and therefore, no right accrues in their favour to
seek regularization through the Commission. The claim of the
petitioners, if any, lies against the State Government and not
against the Commission. It is further submitted that any direction
for regularization or absorption of the petitioners without following
the due process of recruitment through the CGPSC would be in
direct contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. The Commission cannot be compelled to recognize or
regularize contractual appointments made dehors the prescribed
recruitment procedure. Hence, in absence of any statutory
obligation or role attributable to the CGPSC in the engagement of
the petitioners, the present writ petitions, insofar as they concern
the Commission, deserve to be dismissed.
29. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
considerable length and have bestowed my thoughtful
consideration to the rival submissions advanced across the Bar.
I have also carefully perused the pleadings filed in all the
connected writ petitions, the annexures appended thereto, the
original records made available by the learned State counsel, as
well as the statutory provisions and notifications governing the
field.
20
30. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material placed on
record, it emerges that the petitioners were appointed as
Demonstrators pursuant to a due process of selection initiated
through public advertisement during the years 2008-2009. Their
appointments were made against sanctioned posts in
Government Nursing Colleges under the applicable Rules framed
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Though the initial
appointments were contractual in nature for a limited period, the
services of the petitioners were continuously extended from time
to time, and they have remained in uninterrupted service for more
than 16-17 years.
31. It is also not in dispute that throughout this long tenure, the
petitioners have discharged duties identical in nature to those
performed by regular employees holding the same posts. The
record does not disclose any adverse remarks regarding their
performance. On the contrary, their services have been
repeatedly extended by the competent authorities, which prima
facie reflects satisfactory discharge of duties and continued
requirement of their services against the sanctioned posts.
32. The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present
batch of writ petitions is whether the petitioners, having been
appointed through a process consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of Indian and having rendered long years of
continuous service against sanctioned posts, are entitled to
21
consideration for regularization/absorption, and whether the
rejection of their claim vide order dated 29.12.2022 is sustainable
in law.
33. The impugned order dated 29.12.2022 reveals that the claim of
the petitioners has been rejected primarily on the ground that
there exists no policy or provision for regularization of contractual
employees. The said reasoning, in the considered opinion of this
Court, cannot be accepted in a mechanical manner, inasmuch as
the absence of a policy cannot be a ground to defeat a claim
which otherwise requires consideration in light of settled legal
principles governing the field.
34. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the Constitution Bench
judgment in Umadevi (3) (supra), wherein a distinction has been
drawn between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. While illegal
appointments being those made dehors the constitutional scheme
without any selection process are not amenable to regularization,
irregular appointments, where substantial compliance with the
procedure has been followed, stand on a different footing and
may be considered for regularization subject to conditions.
35. The principles laid down in Umadevi (3) (supra) were
subsequently explained and clarified in M.L. Kesari (supra),
Jaggo (supra), Shripal (supra), Vinod Kumar (supra) and
Dharam Singh (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that if an employee has worked for ten years or more in a duly
22
sanctioned post and was appointed through a process consistent
with Article 14, though not strictly in accordance with the rules,
such case would fall within the exception contemplated in
Umadevi (supra) and would require consideration for
regularization, subject to fulfillment of eligibility conditions.
36. Recently, in Bhola Nath (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
again emphasized that where employees have been engaged
pursuant to a due selection process against sanctioned posts and
have rendered long and uninterrupted service for over a decade,
mere description of their engagement as "contractual" cannot be a
ground to indefinitely deny them consideration for regularization,
particularly when the State continues to avail their services. The
Court reiterated that the State cannot perpetuate ad-hocism and
defeat legitimate expectations arising from long and continuous
service by relying solely on contractual nomenclature. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the issue, has held as
under :-
"Limits on Perpetual Contractual
Engagements:
13.2. In the present case, the respondent-
State had engaged the services of the
appellants on sanctioned posts since the year
2012. It was only towards the end of the year
2022 that the respondents communicated that
no further extension of the appellants'
engagement was likely to be granted.
23
13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid
action is not only vitiated by arbitrariness but
is also in clear derogation of the equality
principles enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution. The respondent-State initially
engaged the appellants in their youth to
discharge public duties and functions. Having
rendered long and dedicated service, the
appellants cannot now be left to fend for
themselves, particularly when the
employment opportunities that may have
been available to them a decade ago are no
longer accessible owing to age constraints.
13.4. We are unable to discern any rational
basis for the respondent-State's decision to
discontinue the appellants after nearly ten
years of continuous service. We are
conscious that the symbiotic-relationship
between the appellants and the respondent-
State was mutually beneficial, the State
derived the advantage of the appellants'
experience and institutional familiarity, while
the appellants remained in public service. In
such circumstances, any departure from a
long-standing practice of renewal, particularly
one that frustrates the legitimate expectation
of the employees, ought to be supported by
cogent reasons recorded in a speaking order.
13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a
conscious and reasoned one. An employee
who has satisfactorily discharged his duties
over several years and has been granted
24
repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be
treated as surplus or undesirable. We are
unable to accept the justification advanced by
the respondents as the obligation of the
State, as a model employer, extends to fair
treatment of its employees irrespective of
whether their engagement is contractual or
regular.
13.6. This Court has, on several occasions,
deprecated the practice adopted by States of
engaging employees under the nominal
labels of "part-time", "contractual" or
"temporary" in perpetuity and thereby
exploiting them by not regularizing their
positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, this
Court underscored that government-
departments must lead by example in
ensuring fair and stable employment, and
evolved the test of examining whether the
duties performed by such temporary
employees are integral to the day-to-day
functioning of the organization.
13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam and Vinod
Kumar v. Union of India, this Court
cautioned against a mechanical and blind
reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny
regularization to temporary employees in the
absence of statutory rules. It was held that
Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a
shield to legitimise exploitative engagements
continued for years without undertaking
regular recruitment. The Court further clarified
25
that Umadevi itself draws a distinction
between appointments that are "illegal" and
those that are merely "irregular", the latter
being amenable to regularization upon
fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this
Court strongly deprecated the culture of " ad-
hocism" adopted by States in their capacity
as employers. The Court criticised the
practice of outsourcing or informalizing
recruitment as a means to evade regular
employment obligations, observing that such
measures perpetuate precarious working
conditions while circumventing fair and lawful
engagement practices.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing
paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions
as follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in
continuing the appellants on sanctioned
vacant posts for over a decade under the
nomenclature of contractual engagement
and thereafter denying them consideration
for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-
standing engagement solely on the basis of
contractual nomenclature, without either
recording cogent reasons or passing a
speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
26
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar
claims for regularization cannot override
constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of
contractual terms does not amount to
waiver of fundamental rights, and
contractual stipulations cannot immunize
arbitrary State action from constitutional
scrutiny.
IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot
rely on contractual labels or mechanical
application of Umadevi (supra) to justify
prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-
serving employees in a manner
inconsistent with fairness, dignity and
constitutional governance.
V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we
direct the respondent-State to forthwith
regularize the services of all the appellants
against the sanctioned posts to which they
were initially appointed. The appellants
shall be entitled to all consequential service
benefits accruing from the date of this
judgment."
37. The aforesaid aspect has also been considered and affirmed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar (supra), wherein the
Court reiterated that where employees have been engaged
against sanctioned posts and have rendered long years of
continuous service, the State cannot arbitrarily deny consideration
of their claim for regularization, particularly when such
engagement was not tainted by illegality. The Hon'ble Supreme
27
Court emphasized that fairness in State action requires that such
employees be at least considered under an appropriate policy
framework and held as under :-
"9. Besides the aforesaid aspects, we find that
the law laid down by this Court in Jaggo
(supra) supports the case of the appellants in
their prayer for regularization. In paragraphs
13, 20, 21 and 26, it has been held as under:
"13. The claim by the respondents that
these were not regular posts lacks merit, as
the nature of the work performed by the
appellants was perennial and fundamental
to the functioning of the offices. The
recurring nature of these duties
necessitates their classification as regular
posts, irrespective of how their initial
engagements were labelled. It is also
noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of
these same tasks to private agencies after
the appellants' termination demonstrates
the inherent need for these services. This
act of outsourcing, which effectively
replaced one set of workers with another,
further underscores that the work in
question was neither temporary nor
occasional.
20. It is well established that the decision in
Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to
penalize employees who have rendered
long years of service fulfilling ongoing and
necessary functions of the State or its
28
instrumentalities. The said judgment sought
to prevent backdoor entries and illegal
appointments that circumvent constitutional
requirements. However, where
appointments were not illegal but possibly
"irregular," and where employees had
served continuously against the backdrop
of sanctioned functions for a considerable
period, the need for a fair and humane
resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged,
continuous, and unblemished service
performing tasks inherently required on a
regular basis can, over the time, transform
what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into
a scenario demanding fair regularization. In
a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod
Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India &
Ors. 5, it was held that held that procedural
formalities cannot be used to deny
regularization of service to an employee
whose appointment was termed
"temporary" but has performed the same
duties as performed by the regular
employee over a considerable period in the
capacity of the regular employee. The
relevant paras of this judgement have been
reproduced below:
"6. The application of the judgment in
Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does
not fit squarely with the facts at hand,
given the specific circumstances under
which the appellants were employed and
have continued their service. The reliance
29
on procedural formalities at the outset
cannot be used to perpetually deny
substantive rights that have accrued over
a considerable period through continuous
service. Their promotion was based on a
specific notification for vacancies and a
subsequent circular, followed by a
selection process involving written tests
and interviews, which distinguishes their
case from the appointments through back
door entry as discussed in the case of
Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi
(supra) also distinguished between
"irregular" and "illegal" appointments
underscoring the importance of
considering certain appointments even if
were not made strictly in accordance with
the prescribed Rules and Procedure,
cannot be said to have been made
illegally if they had followed the
procedures of regular appointments such
as conduct of written examinations or
interviews as in the present case..."
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis
on the initial label of the appellants'
engagements and the outsourcing decision
taken after their dismissal. Courts must look
beyond the surface labels and consider the
realities of employment: continuous, long-
term service, indispensable duties, and
absence of any mala fide or illegalities in
30
their appointments. In that light, refusing
regularization simply because their original
terms did not explicitly state so, or because
an outsourcing policy was belatedly
introduced, would be contrary to principles
of fairness and equity.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra)
sought to curtail the practice of backdoor
entries and ensure appointments adhered
to constitutional principles, it is regrettable
that its principles are often misinterpreted
or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of
long-serving employees. This judgment
aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and
"irregular" appointments. It categorically
held that employees in irregular
appointments, who were engaged in duly
sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years,
should be considered for regularization as a
one-time measure. However, the laudable
intent of the judgment is being subverted
when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of
employees, even in cases where their
appointments are not illegal, but merely
lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the
judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that
no vested right to regularization exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the
judgment's explicit acknowledgment of
cases where regularization is appropriate.
31
This selective application distorts the
judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively
weaponizing it against employees who
have rendered indispensable services over
decades."
10. The aforesaid observations are sufficient
to hold that the Tribunal was not justified in
denying relief to the appellants by relying upon
the decision in Umadevi (3) and Ors. (supra).
The High Court also erred in affirming the
decision of the Tribunal. The appellants are
entitled to similar reliefs as granted by this
Court in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra) as well
as in Raman Kumar and Ors. (supra).
11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the judgment
of the High Court dated 26.08.2019 in M.P.
No.3460/2018 is set aside. The services of the
appellants be regularized from 01.07.2006 on
the same terms as made applicable in Ravi
Verma and Ors. (supra) as well as in Raman
Kumar and Ors. (supra). The benefits be
released in favour of the appellants within a
period of three months from today.
12. The applicants in Interim Application
No.42233/2020, who were impleaded as party
respondents in view of the order dated
15.03.2021 are also entitled to the aforesaid
reliefs."
38. Further, in Abhishek Sharma (supra), while dealing with a similar
controversy relating to long-serving contractual employees, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the State cannot take
32
advantage of the contractual nature of appointment after having
utilized the services of such employees for a prolonged period. It
was held that where the appointments are not illegal and the
employees have continued for a considerable duration, their claim
deserves due consideration in accordance with law, rather than
being rejected in a mechanical manner and observed as under :-
"10.8. More recently, a 7-Judge Bench of this
Court, in State of Punjab and others v.
Davinder Singh and others, had occasion to
consider the permissibility of sub-classification
within the framework of affirmative action, in
the context of the equality mandate under
Article 14 of the Constitution. While delineating
the parameters governing the creation of
classifications without transgressing the
principle of equality before the law, this Court
observed as follows: -
"84. Article 14 employs two expressions --
equality before the law and equal protection
of the laws. Both different in content and
sweep. "Equality before the law", an
expression derived from the English
Common law, entails absence of special
privileges for any individual within the
territory. It does not mean that the same
law should apply to everyone, but that the
same law should apply to those who are
similarly situated. The expression "equal
protection of the laws" means that among
equals, laws must be equally administered.
33
It enjoins the State with the power to
reasonably classify those who are
differently placed. The mandate of "equal
protection of laws" casts a positive
obligation on the State to ensure that
everyone may enjoy equal protection of the
laws, and no one is unfairly denied this
protection. In essence, the guarantee of
equality entails that all persons in like
circumstances must be treated alike. That
there must be a parity of treatment under
parity of conditions. Equality does not entail
sameness. The State is allowed to classify
in a manner that is not discriminatory. The
doctrine of classification gives content to
the guarantee of equal protection of the
laws. Under this approach, the focus is on
the equality of results or opportunities over
equality of treatment.
85. The Constitution permits valid
classification if two conditions are fulfilled.
First, there must be an intelligible differentia
which distinguishes persons grouped
together from others left out of the group.
The phrase "intelligible differentia" means
difference capable of being understood.
The difference is capable of being
understood when there is a yardstick to
differentiate the class included and others
excluded from the group. In the absence of
the yardstick, the differentiation would be
without a basis and hence, unreasonable.
The basis of classification must be
34
deducible from the provisions of the statute;
surrounding circumstances or matters of
common knowledge. In making the
classification, the State is free to recognise
degrees of harm. Though the classification
need not be mathematical in precision,
there must be some difference between the
persons grouped and the persons left out,
and the difference must be real and
pertinent. The classification is
unreasonable if there is "little or no
difference". Second, the differentia must
have a rational relation to the object sought
to be achieved by the law, that is, the basis
of classification must have a nexus with the
object of the classification."
(emphasis supplied)
Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, does
not fetter the power of the State to frame
classifications, for equals alone are entitled to
equal treatment. Persons who are not similarly
situated cannot claim parity. However, the said
principle does not confer upon the State an
unfettered licence to carve out artificial
distinctions within a class of persons who are
otherwise similarly situated. Any such artificial
or unreasonable classification would strike at
the very core of the right to equality and
violate the mandate of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
***
12. In light of the foregoing analysis and
discussion, we summarise our conclusions as
under: -
I. Nomenclature is not determinative of
constitutional entitlement. Where employees
appointed on an "academic arrangement"
basis are similarly situated to those engaged
on ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis
in terms of duties, tenure, conditions of
service and mode of appointment, denial of
equal treatment solely on the basis of
nomenclature is impermissible under Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
***
V. The State, as a model employer, cannot
adopt artificial classifications to deny
statutory benefits. Repackaging contractual
engagements under a different
nomenclature, while denying regularization,
violates the equality mandate under Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution."
39. Very recently, in Mohammad Sagir (supra), while examining the
issue of regularization, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated
that the principles laid down in Umadevi (supra) cannot be
applied in a rigid or hyper-technical manner so as to defeat
legitimate claims arising from long and continuous service. The
Court underscored that where employees have worked for
substantial periods against sanctioned posts and their
appointments are not per se illegal, the State is obligated to adopt
a fair and reasonable approach in considering their cases for
regularization or by framing an appropriate scheme and held as
under :-
"13. We are conscious of the law that the
burden to prove that a workman had worked
continuously for 240 days in the preceding one
year prior to the alleged retrenchment lies on
the workman. However, each case is to be
decided on its own facts. In a case where
engagement is for a substantial length of time,
a presumption would arise that the work for
which the workmen is engaged is of a
perennial nature and there exists a vacant
post. In the instant case, there is no dispute
that workmen were initially engaged in the
year 1993 and their services were dispensed
with in the year 2006. It is difficult to accept
that for that long period of time they were only
working as substitutes for regular workers. In
such circumstances, when they had led
evidence regarding their continuous service
and a direction was issued to the employer to
produce the relevant records and, despite
such direction, records were not produced, if
the Labour Court had raised an adverse
inference, the same could not have been
faulted.
14. We are, therefore, of the view that the
judgment and order passed by the High Court
is liable to be set aside. However, merely
because the retrenchment procedure was not
followed may not automatically entitle the
workmen to be reinstated with full back wages.
15. In this case, though, we are of the view
that the workmen were entitled to
reinstatement as they had served for over a
decade, however, whether they were entitled
to full back-wages/ arrears or lesser amount,
requires adjudication based on assessment
whether they were gainfully employed
elsewhere in the interregnum. Consequently,
we deem it appropriate to remand the matter
to the High Court to decide on the entitlement
for back-wages. Insofar as direction in the
award(s) to reinstate the said workmen is
concerned. the same is upheld."
40. Reverting to the facts of the present cases, and upon a holistic
consideration of the pleadings, documents placed on record, and
the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
respective parties, this Court finds that the foundational facts are
largely undisputed. The petitioners in both the writ petitions were
appointed as Demonstrators pursuant to a duly notified selection
process conducted in the years 2008-2009. Their appointments
were made against sanctioned posts in Government Nursing
Colleges after following a procedure consistent with the mandate
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners
possessed the requisite qualifications, participated in a process of
selection conducted by duly constituted committees, and were
appointed on the basis of merit.
41. It is further evident from the record that although the petitioners
were initially appointed on contractual basis, their services have
been continuously extended from time to time for more than 16-
17 years without any break. During this entire period, the
petitioners have discharged duties identical to those performed by
regular employees and have continued to serve against
sanctioned posts. There is no material on record to suggest that
their appointments were tainted by any illegality, fraud or
backdoor entry. On the contrary, the consistent extension of their
services by the State itself demonstrates the continued necessity
of their services and satisfaction of their performance.
42. Insofar as WPS No.1465/2023 is concerned, the petitioners
therein have approached this Court challenging the rejection of
their claim for regularization vide order dated 29.12.2022 and
seeking a direction for consideration of their case in light of settled
legal principles. Similarly, in WPS No.3647/2023, the petitioners,
who are identically situated, have raised the same grievance
arising out of the same impugned action and have sought
analogous reliefs. Thus, both the writ petitions arise out of a
common cause of action and involve identical questions of fact
and law, namely, the entitlement of long-serving contractual
Demonstrators to be considered for regularization.
43. The stand taken by the respondent-State in opposing the petitions
is primarily premised on the contractual nature of appointment
and absence of any policy for regularization. However, as
discussed hereinabove, such a stand cannot be accepted in a
mechanical or absolute manner. The law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), as subsequently explained
and clarified in M.L. Kesari (supra) and further reiterated in recent
judgments including Jaggo (supra), Vinod Kumar (supra),
Shripal (supra), Dharam Singh (supra), Bhola Nath (supra),
Pawan Kumar (supra), Abhishek Sharma (supra) and
Mohammad Sagir (supra), makes it abundantly clear that the
State cannot perpetuate a regime of ad-hocism by continuing
employees for decades and thereafter deny them consideration
for regularization by relying solely on the contractual label of their
engagement.
44. The distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments, as
carved out in Umadevi (supra), assumes significance in the
present case. The appointments of the petitioners, having been
made through a transparent selection process against sanctioned
posts, cannot be termed as illegal. At the highest, even if any
procedural irregularity is assumed, the same would not disentitle
the petitioners from consideration for regularization, particularly
when they have rendered long and uninterrupted service
exceeding more than one and a half decades.
45. The law is now well settled that where employees have worked for
more than ten years against sanctioned posts without the
protection of any interim order, and their appointments are not
illegal, they are entitled to be considered for regularization as a
one-time measure. The petitioners in both the writ petitions clearly
satisfy the said parameters. The State, by continuing the
petitioners for such a prolonged period and extracting work of a
perennial nature, cannot now turn around and deny them
consideration on the ground that no policy exists.
46. The impugned order dated 29.12.2022, whereby the
representations of the petitioners have been rejected, reflects a
mechanical approach and non-application of mind. The rejection
is founded solely on the absence of a policy, without examining
whether the petitioners fall within the category of employees
entitled to consideration under the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such an approach, in the considered
opinion of this Court, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
47. The contention of the State that the petitioners have no
enforceable right and that the petitions are premature also does
not merit acceptance. The rejection of their claim vide the
impugned order constitutes a clear cause of action. Moreover, the
right asserted by the petitioners is not an absolute right to
regularization, but a right to fair and lawful consideration of their
case, which is well recognized in service jurisprudence.
48. This Court is also mindful of the fact that the petitioners have now
crossed a substantial part of their service life and have devoted
the prime years of their career in service of the State. Denial of
consideration at this stage, after utilizing their services for nearly
two decades, would not only be inequitable but would also offend
the principles of fairness and reasonableness which are integral to
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
49. In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon a careful
consideration of the authoritative pronouncements rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to hereinabove, this Court
arrives at a firm and well-reasoned conclusion that the petitioners
in both the writ petitions have successfully established their case.
The legal position being settled and the factual matrix being clear
and undisputed, the petitioners are held entitled to the reliefs
sought for, and accordingly, both the writ petitions deserve to be
allowed.
50. Consequently, and in light of the reasons recorded hereinabove,
the impugned order dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure P-1) cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed and set aside.
The respondents are, therefore, directed to take immediate and
appropriate steps to regularize the services of all the petitioners
against the duly sanctioned posts to which they were originally
appointed. Such exercise shall be carried out expeditiously,
without any avoidable delay. The petitioners shall further be
entitled to all consequential service benefits flowing from such
regularization, including but not limited to continuity of service,
proper fixation in the applicable regular pay scale, and all other
attendant and ancillary benefits.
51. In the ultimate analysis, and for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, both the writ petitions being WPS No.1465/2023 and
WPS No.3647/2023, stand allowed. The reliefs as prayed for by
the petitioners are hereby granted in terms of the directions and
observations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this order.
All pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
52. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh
The date when the The date when the The date when the judgment is
judgment is judgment is uploaded on the website
reserved pronounced
Operative Full
01.04.2026 17.04.2026 ------ 17.04.2026
Head Note
Long and uninterrupted service rendered against duly sanctioned
posts, pursuant to a proper and transparent selection process, cannot
be disregarded merely on the ground that the appointments are
described as "contractual". Any rejection of the claim for regularization,
if made in a cursory or mechanical manner without due consideration of
these relevant factors, would be legally unsustainable.
