Irregular Appointments Cannot Be Equated With Illegal Ones, Qualified Appointees With 10+ Years' Service Must Be Regularized: J&K High Court

Declaring that irregular appointments cannot be equated with illegal ones, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that qualified individuals appointed through a proper selection process and who have served in sanctioned posts for more than a decade are entitled to regularization of their services. In a judgment passed by Justice Sanjay Dhar, the Court directed the J&K State Cable Car Corporation to regularize the services of six petitioners from the date of completion of ten years of continuous contractual employment, emphasizing that constitutional fairness mandates such regularization and cannot be withheld on mere procedural technicalities.The Court made it clear that “services of irregularly appointed persons who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under the cover of orders of the courts or tribunals are required to be regularized,” relying heavily on authoritative precedents from the Supreme Court.Reinforcing the constitutional protection against arbitrariness the court remarked,“.. the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of regularization of their services after having served for more than ten years with the respondent Corporation to the entire satisfaction of the employer given the fact that they have been appointed against vacant posts after undergoing a proper selection process”. Background:The case involved six petitioners who were appointed as Supervisor, Technicians, and Junior Ski Patrollers in the years 2012 and 2013 through a due selection process following advertisement notices. Their appointments were contractual in nature but against available sanctioned posts.The petitioners contended that after serving the Corporation for more than a decade with unblemished records and continuous service extensions they had a vested right to be regularized, especially when their similarly situated colleagues appointed in 2011 were regularized in 2013.Represented by Advocate Shakir Haqani, the petitioners pleaded that denying them regularization while granting it to others constituted a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents, through Government Advocate Furqan Yaqub Sofi, opposed the plea on grounds that no regularization policy existed after the repeal of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, and termed earlier regularizations as “past and closed events.”Court's Observations: Justice Dhar, after thoroughly examining the facts and law, held that the petitioners were not backdoor appointees but were selected through a transparent process and have continued to discharge their duties efficiently. The Court also found that the distinction attempted to be made between the petitioners and their regularized counterparts was baseless.“A legitimate expectation had arisen in favour of the petitioners that their cases would be treated in a similar manner,” the Court said, branding the Corporation's refusal to regularize them as “arbitrary and discriminatory.”, the court underscored. Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, the Court distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments and reiterated that “irregular appointments (not illegal), of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts, who have continued to work for ten years or more but without court orders, must be regularized.”Justice Dhar also relied on recent Supreme Court verdicts in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India 2024 and Jaggo v. Union of India 2024 which clarified that procedural shortcomings in the appointment process cannot be weaponized to deny regularization to employees who have served long and faithfully on sanctioned posts.In particularly strong language, the court decried the misuse of temporary employment by public institutions and reiterated, “Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods... not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale.”The Court cautioned against selective reading of Uma Devi to deny justice and pointed to this observation of Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India 2024. “The laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees... even where their appointments are not illegal but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.”Allowing the writ petition, Justice Dhar directed, “The respondents are directed to regularize services of the petitioners on the posts on which they are working, from the date of completion of ten years of contractual service, with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary. The needful shall be done within a period of three months.”The related contempt petition was...

Irregular Appointments Cannot Be Equated With Illegal Ones, Qualified Appointees With 10+ Years' Service Must Be Regularized: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Irregular Appointments Cannot Be Equated With Illegal Ones, Qualified Appointees With 10+ Years' Service Must Be Regularized: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers