As per case facts, appellants were contractual employees of the respondent-State on sanctioned posts for over a decade. After repeated extensions, the State declined further extensions in 2023, leading appellants ... to seek regularization. The High Court dismissed their pleas, emphasizing the contractual nature of employment. The appeal to the Supreme Court challenged this, arguing that the denial of regularization after long, satisfactory service against sanctioned posts was arbitrary and violated fundamental rights, and that contractual terms could not waive constitutional protections given the unequal bargaining power. The question arose whether the State's refusal to regularize appellants' continuous service was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, and if contractual terms could override constitutional guarantees. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the State's prolonged contractual engagement on sanctioned posts, followed by abrupt discontinuance without reason, was arbitrary and violated Article 14. Contractual clauses cannot bar regularization or shield the State from constitutional scrutiny. The Court directed the State to regularize all appellants on their initial sanctioned posts with benefits from the judgment date.