Contingency Driver Not Entitled To Seek Regularisation Or Promotion Against Direct Recruitment: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that a contingency driver cannot claim either regularisation or promotion into a vacancy that is earmarked for direct recruitment under the applicable Recruitment Rules and the post-based roster.

Presiding over the case, Justice Manish Choudhury, observed, “Though a right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right but such right to be considered for promotion is to be considered in terms of the extant Recruitment Rules. A set of rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India are constitutional rules and they have the same force as a statute, though made by the executive.”

“It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CMD/Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others vs. Mishri Lal and others, [2011] 14 SCC 739, that since a rule under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution is legislative in character, the rule can be amended, even with retrospective effect,” the Court further held.

The above ruling was passed in a civil writ petition filed by one Robin challenging an Advertisement issued by Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board (APSSB) for filling one post of Group C Driver in the Labour and Employment Department.

As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner was appointed as a Contingency Driver in 2012 and has been serving continuously since then. He sought regularisation of his service after completing eight years, relying on the case of another Contingency Driver, Paresh Das, whose service was regularised in 2020. Despite submitting multiple representations, the Department did not act on his request. Instead, APSSB issued an Advertisement in 2025 inviting applications for one post of Group 'C' Driver in the Labour and Employment Department, reserved for an APST candidate. The petitioner challenged this advertisement on the ground that the existing vacancy should be used to regularise his service or consider him for promotion, rather than being filled through direct recruitment

The State placed on record the amended recruitment scheme showing that 50% of posts are to be filled by direct recruitment, 25% by LDCE from eligible Contingency Drivers, and 25% by LDCE from Handymen. It was further pointed out that the Labour and Employment Department had three sanctioned posts of Group C Driver, out of which two were already filled by other candidates, and as per the roster, the third vacant post was earmarked for direct recruitment.

The Court in its ruling, analysed the amended 2024 Rules and held, “the only way available for a Contingency Driver to be appointed as a Driver Group - 'C' is by way of promotion through LDCE and not by way of regularization. With the substitution of the relevant rules prescribing the only method as by LDCE, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for the post of Driver by way of regularization.”

The Court then applied the roster position and held, “The Department of Labour and Employment has no other option but to fill up the lone vacancy presently existing in the post of Group - 'C' Driver by way of direct recruitment in order to adhere to the provisions of the Rules, 2006, as amended, by the Rules, 2024.”

Accordingly, it held that the petitioner's claim either for regularization or for filling up the lone vacancy, even by LDCE cannot be countenanced.

The Court noted the petitioner's long service and future prospects under the LDCE quota but ordered, “it might be open for the petitioner to stake his claim for promotion to the post of Group - 'C' Driver only when a vacancy arises in the quota reserved for filling up in the post of Group - 'C' Driver by way of promotion from Contingency Drivers.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Number: WP(C) No. 425/2025

Case Title: Robin Padung v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors

Click here to read the judgment