Backdoor Appointments Cannot Be Regularised: J&K&L High Court Dismisses Plea Of Junior Engineers Engaged On 'Hire & Fire' Basis For 9 Years
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by three Junior Engineers who had been engaged by the University of Kashmir on a “Hire and Fire” basis on consolidated wages for over nine years, seeking quashing of a fresh advertisement notification for regular recruitment and directions for regularisation of their services.The Court held that...
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by three Junior Engineers who had been engaged by the University of Kashmir on a “Hire and Fire” basis on consolidated wages for over nine years, seeking quashing of a fresh advertisement notification for regular recruitment and directions for regularisation of their services.
The Court held that the engagement of the petitioners without any advertisement or proper selection process was per se backdoor and violative of the constitutional scheme of public employment.
The Court was hearing six connected writ petitions arising from a common order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, which had declined interim relief to the petitioners. The Court had subsequently sent for the original OAs from the Tribunal and taken them up for final consideration.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, while observing that “the appointments made without following the due process or the rules for appointment do not confer any right on the appointees and the Courts cannot direct their absorption or regularisation or re-engagement or making them permanent,” held that “the wide powers conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution are not intended to be used for a purpose certain to defeat the concept of social justice and equal opportunity for all.”
Background:
The petitioners were engaged by the University of Kashmir in 2017 as Junior Engineers (Electrical and Civil) on what the University termed as “Hire and Fire” basis on a monthly consolidated wage of Rs.15,000/-, which was later revised to Rs.20,000/-. Their temporary services were extended from time to time, with the last extension granted up to 22.05.2026.
While they were continuing on the basis of the last extension order, the University issued Advertisement Notification inviting applications to fill up one post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and two posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the open merit category.
Apprehending their ouster after 22.05.2026, the petitioners filed OAs before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking quashing of the advertisement notification and directions for regularisation of their services on the basis of past practice. The Tribunal declined interim relief, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court.
The petitioners contended that they had served the University for more than nine years, possessed the requisite qualifications, and had been appointed against clear vacancies. They argued that their engagement was only “irregular” and not “illegal,” and that they had acquired a legitimate expectation of regularisation. Reliance was placed upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the University Council decision dated 11.10.2013 providing for regularisation of casual/contractual engagements.
The respondent-University contended that the initial engagement was made without any advertisement or selection process, on a pick-and-choose basis, and was clearly backdoor. It argued that such appointments violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and could not be ratified by conferring a right of regularisation. The petitioners were welcome to participate in the fresh selection process.
Court's Observation:
The Court extensively analysed the constitutional scheme of equality and equal opportunity, tracing the evolution of Article 14 from E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3, where the Supreme Court held that Article 14 embodies a guarantee against arbitrariness.
The Court then examined the Constitution Bench decision in Uma Devi (3) in detail, extracting paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment which warned that courts must desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection at the instance of those who have secured employment without following a regular procedure. The Court noted,
“...It is time, that Courts desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such persons and from issuing directions for continuance of those who have not secured regular appointments as per procedure established.”
The Court further observed,
“... When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post.”
Referring to the one-time exception carved out in para 53 of Uma Devi (3) , the Court clarified that the benefit of regularisation was available only to those irregular appointees who had worked for ten years or more as on 10.04.2006 (the date of the judgment) without the protection of court orders.
The Court also referred to the recent Supreme Court judgment in Madan Singh v. State of Haryana (2026 INSC 379) , which reiterated that regularisation of an adhoc, temporary, contractual or consolidated employee without advertisement and proper process of selection is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Court held,
“.. Viewed thus, the prayer of the petitioners for seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondent-University to regularise their services and also for a writ of certiorari to quash the process of selection initiated by the respondent-University vide Advertisement Notification No. 05/2026 dated 30.03.2026 for making regular appointments in adherence to the principle of equality and equal opportunity envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 cannot be granted.”
The Court further observed that the policy of regularisation framed by the University in the year 2013 was not applicable to temporary engagements made in the year 2017 and had outlived its life and utility.
The Court thus dismissed all the writ petitions, finding no merit in them. However, the Court permitted the petitioners, if otherwise eligible, to participate in the selection process initiated by the advertisement notification.
Case Title: Pir Mohd Ishaq & Ors. v. University of Kashmir & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)