Madras High Court Refuses To Regularise Temporary Stenos, Typists, Junior Assistants In District Judiciary

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar emphasised that the temporary appointment could not be allowed to continue for an indefinite period. The court remarked that the judicial department is expected to initiate steps to ensure that the sanctioned posts are made available and are filled up by conducting a recruitment process on a regular basis.

“This Court is of the considered view that such temporary appointments cannot be allowed to continue for an indefinite period, which may give rise to expectations for regularisation. Therefore, the Judicial Department is expected to initiate proactive action to ensure that required number of sanctioned posts are made available and such posts are filled up by conducting recruitment process on regular basis,” the court said.

The court made it clear that all appointments made to public posts should be strictly as per the constitutional scheme. The court also remarked that irregular, illegal and back-door appointments not only violate the applicable service rules but also infringe the fundamental rights of meritorious candidates who aspire to secure public employment. The court also remarked that allowing such back-door appointment to continue constitutional sin.

“Back-door appointments / Regularisation / Permanent Absorption are made without following the recruitment rules and without any merit assessment and without following the rule of reservation. If such affairs are allowed to be continued uninterruptedly by the Courts and by the State, undoubtedly, the equality clause enunciated under the Constitution of India would be violated and result in a constitutional sin,” the court said.

The court also remarked that equal opportunity in public employment is a noble principle where the poorest meritorious candidate will get an opportunity. Depriving this opportunity, the court said, would be anti-developmental activities and the same could not be allowed by the state or by the courts.

“The concept of equal opportunity in public employment, is a noble principle, wherein even a poorest meritorious candidate from rural background will get an employment opportunity to public posts. Depriving opportunity to those poor and down-trodden youth from rural areas, would result in anti-developmental activities and such deprival of the right of those youth, at no circumstances, be allowed or encouraged by the State or by the Courts,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a batch of pleas filed by the temporary employees seeking to be reinstated in service and to be regularised. The petitioners submitted that they were appointed temporarily by invoking Rule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules. The petitioners argued that except for break in service, the temporary employees were continuing in service and a few of them were terminated. The petitioners argued that they had rendered service for a long period and were entitled to be regularised in the sanctioned posts in the regular time scale of pay.

The state, on the other hand, objected to the plea and argued that the appointments were purely temporary in nature and the petitioners were not entitled to seek regularisation. It was argued that after accepting appointment on the terms and conditions, the petitioners could not seek regularisation now.

The court agreed with the state and noted that after accepting the terms and conditions of temporary appointment, the petitioners could not turn around and claim permanent appointment/regularisation without undergoing the regular recruitment process in accordance with the Service Rules.

The court also observed that it could not direct an employer to regularise the services of a temporary employee in violation of the recruitment rules. The court added that the same would be beyond the realm of power of judicial review.

The court thus directed the judicial department to undertake regular recruitment processes. The court also directed the department to permit the present petitioners to participate in the recruitment process, if they were otherwise eligible.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. A. Sakthivel, Mr. R. Ezhilarasan, Mr. S. Arokiamaniraj

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Palanimuthu, Dr. R. Gouri Government Counsel Mr. V. Balamurugan, Mr. S. Giridharan Standing Counsel, Ms. N. K. Kanthimathi, Mr. E. Chandrasekaran, Ms. B. Poongkhulali Standing Counsel, Mr. J. Chandra Sundar Sushikumar Standing Counsel, Mr. P. Kannan Kumar Standing Counsel, Mr. M. Fakkir Mohideen Standing Counsel

Case Title: R Bharathi v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 334

Case No: WP No 16428 of 2025 and etc., batch