Ad Hoc Employees Appointed Without Recruitment Advertisements Or Interviews Cannot Be Regularised: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently partly set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had quashed a set of Haryana government policies aimed at regularising contractual, ad hoc and daily wage employees. The Court upheld the validity of two notifications issued on June 16, 2014 and June 18, 2014, but struck down two notifications issued on July 7, 2014.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul Chandurkar noted that the July 2014 notifications sought to regularise those ad hoc employees who were not appointed following a proper recruitment process initiated via a public advertisement, thus violating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006).

In the Umadevi judgment, the Supreme Court held that public employment must ordinarily be filled through a proper recruitment process and that contractual or ad hoc employees cannot be regularised as a matter of course. The Court had, however, permitted a limited “one-time measure” to regularise employees who had worked for over ten years as of April 10, 2006 without court protection.

“The intent was to accommodate such ad hoc employees, who came to be engaged, albeit temporarily, in the absence of any public advertisement or interview. We see no justifiable reason to uphold the validity of the two Notifications dated 07.07.2014 since they intend to regularise the services of such ad hoc employees, who were engaged without any advertisement and without being interviewed. To that extent, the impugned judgment of the High Court holding the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 to be arbitrary and illegal does not deserve to be interfered with”, the Court observed.

While quashing the said two policies, the Supreme Court directed that employees who had already continued in service under the July 7, 2014 policies would not be removed and would instead be placed on the lowest pay scale of the posts they hold.

The Court opined that the High Court erred in invalidating the June 2014 notifications, which were issued to extend the benefit of an earlier 1996 regularisation policy to similarly placed employees who had been left out.

These notifications required employees to have been appointed against sanctioned posts, possess prescribed qualifications, and satisfy reservation requirements. Therefore, the Court said, they did not dilute the standards applicable to regular recruitment.

A batch of writ petitions before the High Court challenged Haryana government notifications dated June 16, 2014, June 18, 2014, and July 7, 2014, which sought to regularise Group B, C and D employees working on contractual or ad hoc basis.

On May 31, 2018, the High Court quashed these policies, holding them contrary to the law laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, and directed withdrawal of benefits granted under them while allowing employees to continue for six months to enable fresh recruitment.

Before the Supreme Court, the State of Haryana and affected employees argued that the policies were a valid exercise of executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution, adopted to address staff shortages. They also argued that the employees were qualified, had been appointed through public advertisements and selection committees, and were only irregular, not illegal, appointees.

The Court examined the June 2014 notifications and noted that they were intended to regularise employees who had been eligible under the earlier 1996 policy but were left out. It noted that the criteria for regularisation were consistent with recruitment norms, including the requirement of working against sanctioned posts and possessing necessary qualifications. The Court found no material to show that ineligible persons were being regularised or that the exercise was arbitrary or mala fide.

In contrast, the Court held that the July 7, 2014 notifications were arbitrary and illegal. It noted that these policies sought to regularise employees who had not been appointed through any advertisement or interview, and made those employees eligible who would complete ten years of service only by December 31, 2018. The Court said there was no justification for such a policy and that it would prevent regular recruitment by reserving posts for such employees.

“There is no justification placed on record by the State of Haryana as to why services of such ad hoc employees, who had not been engaged on the basis of any advertisement or interview were sought to be regularised, that too by taking into consideration a future cut-off date of 31.12.2018. The claim of being engaged sans an advertisement itself gives rise to doubts as regards the manner of engagement. Absence of any record whatsoever of the manner of engagement does not inspire any confidence in such process. That such ad hoc employee has not faced any interview is another relevant feature. Further, there does not appear to be any rational basis for fixing a future cut-off date, which is beyond four years from the date of the Notifications. This would indicate that even when it was possible to initiate a process of regular recruitment after issuance of the Notifications dated 07.07.2014, by virtue of the impugned Notifications, number of posts which could have been filled in through regular recruitment were not liable to be advertised”, the Court observed.

While striking down the July 7, 2014 notifications, the Court noted that many employees had continued in service for years under interim orders and that the State itself had stated that their continuation would not affect advertised posts. Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed that such employees should not be disturbed and should be placed at the lowest pay scale applicable to their posts, in line with the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The Court accordingly modified the High Court's judgment. It upheld the June 16 and June 18, 2014 notifications and restored benefits granted under them, subject to verification. It struck down the July 7, 2014 notifications but protected employees already continuing under them.

Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024

Case Title – Madan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 390