1

2026:CGHC:17639

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Order reserved on : 01.04.2026

Order delivered on : 17.04.2026

WPS No. 1465 of 2023

1. Smt. Sumitra Mallick W/o Shri Subhash Mallick, Aged about 43

years, Presently posted as Demonstrator (contractual), at Govt.

Nursing College, Raipur, Resident of : B.M.Y. Shikshit Nagar,

Charodha, P.S. Bhilai District - Durg C.G.

2. Smt. Priyanaka P. Ashwagan W/o Dr. Prashant John Ashawan, Aged

about 40 years, Presently posted as Demonstrator (contractual), At

Govt. Nursing College Raipur, Resident of: D-23, Bhavana Nagar,

Khamardih Main Road, Shankar Nagar, P.S. Raipur, Telibanda, District -

Raipur CG.

3.Smt. Shalini Agrawal, age-39 years. W/o Mr. Ravi Kumar Agrawal,

Jiwaji Heights, Flat no. 304, Kapil Nagar Chowk, Sarkanda Bilaspur

(CG)

4. Smt. Anima Lakra, W/o Dr. Rajesh Sachin Panna, aged about 40

years R/o 162/B, Ramkirshna Nagar, Mopka Bilaspur CG

------Petitioners

2

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Ministry of Health and

Medical Education Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa

Raipur District Raipur (CG)

2. The Director, Directorate of Medical Education Old Nurses Hostel,

DKS Bhavan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents

WPS No. 3647 of 2023

1. Smt. Vidya P. Tandy W/o Shri Sunil Tandy, Aged about 50 years,

Presently posted as Demonstrator (contractual), at Govt. Nursing

College, Ambikapur, Permanent Resident of: near Christian Hospital

Dhamtari P.S. Dhamtari District - Dhamtari (C.G.)

2. Smt. Anju Bodalkar W/o Mr. Nikhil Kumar Bodalkar, Aged about 39

years, Presently posted as - Demonstrator, (contractual), At Govt.

Nursing College Jagdalpur, Resident of: MIG First floor 08, Housing

board colonly, Aghanpur, Dharmpura, Jagdalpur, P.S. Jagdalpur

District-Bastar (C.G)

3. Smt. Asha Sahu W/o Mr. G.G. Sahu, Aged About - 40 years,

Presently posted as - Demonstrator, (contractual), At Govt. Nursing

College Jagdalpur, Resident of: MIG 34 GF, Housing Board Colony,

Aghanpur, Dharmpura, Jagdalpur, P.S. Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G)

4. Smt. Anita Rani Gupta, W/o Mr. Harsh Gupta, Aged About -40 years,

Presently posted as Demonstrator, (contractual), At Govt. Nursing

3

College Jagdalpur Resident of: Flat No. 2/36, 440, Housing Board

Colony, Lalbagh, Jagdalpur, P.S. Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G)

5. Smt. Vidya Ansh W/o Ansh Raghavan, Aged About - 42 years,

Presently posted as Demonstrator, (contractual), At Govt. Nursing

College, Jagdalpur, Resident of: Sanjay Gandhi Ward 34, opposite to

Manke furniture, Bhodhgat road Jagdalpur, P.S. Jagdalpur District-

Bastar (C.G).

6. Smt. Priyanka Shirke W/o Dhushyant Meshram, Aged About 38

years Presently posted as Demonstrator, (contractual), At Govt.

Nursing College, Jagdalpur Resident of: MIG 11, Housing Board

Colony, Aghanpur, Dharmpura Jagdalpur, P.S. Jagdalpur District-

Bastar (C.G)

7. Miss Anupa Tirkey as D/o Shri S. Tirkey, Aged About - 37 years,

Presently posted Demonstrator (contractual), at Govt. Nursing College,

Ambikapur, Resident of: Namnakala, Patpariya, Ambikapur, P.S.

Gandhinagar District- Sarguja (C.G).

8. Smt. Purnima Shukla W/o Shri Devendra Pathak, Aged about 39

years, Presently posted as - Demonstrator (contractual), at Govt.

Nursing College, Ambikapur, Resident of: Ram Mandir Road

Brahampara Ambikapur, P.S. Kotwali, District Sarguja (C.G).

------Petitioners

Versus

4

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Ministry of Health and

Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District

Raipur (CG)

2. Directorate of Medical Education Old Nurses Hostel, DKS Bhavan,

District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through: The Secretary,

Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Near

Bhagat Singh Square, District -Raipur (C.G.)

--- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners :Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate

For State :Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government

Advocate with Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel

Lawyer

For CGPSC :Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

CAV Order

1.Heard Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the

respective petitioners as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned

Government Advocate with Mr. Arpit Agrawal, learned Panel

Lawyer appearing for the State and Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay,

learned counsel appearing for the CGPSC.

2.Since a common question of law and fact is involved in all both

5

the writ petitions, they were clubbed together, heard analogously

with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, and are being

decided by this common order.

3.The grievances raised by all the petitioners in the present writ

petitions are essentially common in nature. The petitioners are

qualified individuals who were appointed as Demonstrators in

various Government Nursing and Government Polytechnic

Colleges under the State after following due process of law.

Although their initial appointment was made on a contractual

basis for a period of one year, the petitioners have continuously

discharged their duties for more than 16-17 years by virtue of

periodic extensions granted by the respondent authorities.

4.According to the petitioners, their appointments were made

against sanctioned posts and after proper selection procedure,

and they have been rendering satisfactory services without any

complaint. Despite their long and continuous service, the

respondent authorities have neither framed any policy nor taken

any steps for their regularization/absorption against regular posts.

The petitioners have made several representations before the

competent authorities seeking regularization of their services;

however, no action has been taken thereon.

5.Thus, in sum and substance, the core grievance of all the

petitioners is that despite being eligible and having rendered long

years of continuous service, they are being denied consideration

6

for absorption/regularization, which is arbitrary, discriminatory, and

violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6.By way of the present petitions, the petitioners have challenged

the order dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure P-1), whereby the

respondent State has failed to consider the case of the petitioners

for regularization and has continued its arbitrary and non-

considerate approach. The impugned action is contrary to the

settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as

well as the Division Bench of this Court. The petitioners have,

therefore, sought quashment of the impugned order and issuance

of appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to consider

and grant regularization/absorption to the petitioners on the

regular posts in accordance with law.

7.In both the writ petitions being WPS No.1465/2023 and WPS

No.3647/2023, the petitioners have prayed for similar reliefs,

which are as under :-

“A. May, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing

the respondents to produce all the relevant

records pertaining to the case of petitioner, if

the Hon'ble Court may so desire.

B. May this Hon'ble Court be pleased to

Quash the order dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure

P-1) and direct the Respondents to frame a

policy for regularization of the contractual

7

employees in light of the Judgment rendered

by the Apex Court in Uma devi Case.

C. May, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to issue a writ in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondents to

absorb/ regularize the services in the regular

post with all consequential benefits.

D. May, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Issue

any other order or orders, writ or writs,

direction or directions as this Hon'ble Court

may deem fit.

E. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court

may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of

case.

F. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.”

8.Brief consolidated facts of this batch of writ petitions are that: the

State of Chhattisgarh came into existence on 01.11.2000 upon its

bifurcation from the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh.

Thereafter, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of

the Constitution of India, the State framed various service rules,

including the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam,

2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2004”), governing

contractual appointments under the State. The said Rules, inter

alia, prescribe the eligibility criteria, mode and manner of

selection, and constitution of the Selection Committee for such

appointments. At the relevant point of time, the State had

established several Government Nursing Colleges, including

8

newly established institutions, wherein posts of Demonstrators

were sanctioned. During the years 2008–2009, advertisements

were issued inviting applications from eligible candidates for

appointment to the said posts. In response to advertisements, a

large number of candidates participated in the selection process.

9.The petitioners, being eligible and duly qualified, applied for the

said posts and participated in the selection process. Their

candidature was scrutinized by the competent authorities, and

they were called for interview. The selection process was

conducted by duly constituted Selection Committees comprising

senior officers and subject experts, including officers from the

Directorate of Medical Education and Principals of Nursing

Colleges. The petitioners were selected on the basis of their merit

and performance in the interview, in accordance with the

applicable rules and reservation policy.

10.Pursuant to their selection, the petitioners were appointed as

Demonstrators in different Government Nursing Colleges,

including institutions at Ambikapur, Jagdalpur, Raipur and

Bilaspur, during the years 2008–2009. Their appointments were

made against sanctioned posts and initially for a contractual

period of one year, as per the provisions of the Rules of 2004 and

the terms of appointment. As per the applicable conditions of

service, the contractual appointments of the petitioners were

subject to extension upon satisfactory performance. The record

9

indicates that the services of the petitioners were extended from

time to time on yearly or shorter-term basis, based on evaluation

of their performance by the competent authorities. The petitioners

continued to discharge their duties as Demonstrators throughout

this period, and there is nothing on record to indicate any adverse

remarks against them.

11.Over a period of time, the petitioners have rendered continuous

and uninterrupted service for more than 16 to 17 years in their

respective institutions. During the course of their service, certain

amendments were made to the Rules of 2004, including in the

years 2012 and 2019, and the services of the petitioners

continued to be governed under the amended framework. The

extension orders issued to the petitioners from time to time reflect

continuation of their engagement under the prevailing rules. It

further appears from the record that the petitioners were

subjected to conditions similar to those applicable in regular

service, including deductions towards schemes such as Life

Insurance or Provident Fund, as provided under the terms of their

contractual engagement. The petitioners continued in service

during the said period, including during the COVID-19 pandemic,

and discharged their duties in the respective institutions. Their

services have been utilized by the State continuously against the

sanctioned posts of Demonstrators.

12.At various points of time, representations were submitted by the

10

petitioners and similarly situated contractual employees seeking

consideration for regularization/absorption in service, in view of

their long tenure and continuous engagement. The record further

indicates that issues relating to regularization of contractual

employees had also arisen in other cases before this Court,

wherein directions were issued for consideration of such claims. It

is also borne out from the record that certain communications and

deliberations took place at the departmental level regarding the

issue of regularization of contractual employees. However, no

comprehensive policy or statutory framework for regularization

was brought into force by the State.

13.Subsequently, the representations submitted by the petitioners

came to be considered by the respondent authorities and were

rejected vide order dated 29.12.2022, primarily on the ground that

there exists no provision or rule enabling regularization of

contractual employees. The record further indicates that the

services of the petitioners have continued to be extended even

after the said rejection order, by issuance of extension orders for

specified periods, and as per the latest extensions, the petitioners

have continued in service up to the year 2022–2023 and

thereafter. It has also been brought on record that the petitioners

are continuing to work on the posts of Demonstrators as on date,

and by virtue of successive extensions, they have completed

more than one and a half decades of service under the State

without any break.

11

14.The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the

aforesaid order dated 29.12.2022 and raising issues relating to

continuation and regularization of the petitioners in service.

15.Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respective

petitioners, would submit that the impugned action of the

respondent-State is ex facie arbitrary, illegal, perverse and

contrary to the settled principles of constitutional and service

jurisprudence. It is contended that the rejection of the petitioners’

claim for regularization vide order dated 29.12.2022 is not only

non-speaking and mechanical, but also reflects complete non-

application of mind to the factual matrix as well as binding judicial

precedents governing the field. Learned counsel submits that the

State, being a model employer, cannot adopt an exploitative

approach by continuing the petitioners for nearly two decades and

thereafter deny them legitimate consideration on untenable

grounds.

16.It is further submitted that the initial appointments of the

petitioners were made strictly in accordance with law, pursuant to

a public advertisement, against sanctioned vacant posts, and after

undergoing a due process of selection as prescribed under the

Rules of 2004 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of

India. The petitioners participated in a competitive selection

process, were found eligible and meritorious, and were appointed

only after due scrutiny and interview conducted by duly

12

constituted Selection Committees comprising senior officials and

subject experts. It is thus contended that the appointments of the

petitioners cannot be termed as illegal or backdoor entries, but at

the highest, even if any procedural deficiency such as non-

consultation with the Public Service Commission is assumed, the

same would render the appointments merely irregular and not

illegal.

17.In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has

placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Siraj Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2020) 19 SCC

480, wherein it has been held that absence of prior concurrence

of the Public Service Commission would not render the

appointment illegal, but at the most irregular. It is submitted that

the said principle is squarely applicable to the case at hand.

Further reliance is placed upon the Constitution Bench judgment

in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v.

State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715, to contend that where

appointments are made after following a procedure consistent

with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, minor procedural

deviations would not vitiate the appointment as illegal.

18.Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners have

rendered continuous and uninterrupted service for more than 17–

18 years against sanctioned posts without the benefit of any

interim protection from any court, thereby squarely satisfying the

13

conditions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of

Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 247. Referring to

the said judgment, it is contended that employees who have

worked for more than ten years, whose appointments are not

illegal, and who possess the requisite qualifications, are entitled to

be considered for regularization in terms of the principles laid

down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and

others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is submitted that the petitioners fulfill

all the conditions laid down therein and are therefore entitled to

consideration as a matter of right.

19.Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the consistent line of

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which have recognized

the rights of long-serving contractual employees. Reliance is

placed on Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2024)

9 SCC 327, wherein it was held that mere nomenclature of

employment as “temporary” or “contractual” cannot be used to

deny regularization when employees have performed duties akin

to regular employees for long periods. Further reliance is placed

on Jaggo v. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC

3826, wherein it was held that long and uninterrupted service

extending beyond a decade cannot be ignored merely on the

ground of contractual status.

20.Learned counsel has further relied upon Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar

Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and Dharam

14

Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 1735, to contend that the State cannot take shelter

under absence of a policy to deny regularization, as such inaction

itself amounts to exploitation and arbitrary exercise of power.

Reliance is also placed upon the recent judgment in Bhola Nath

v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129,

wherein in similar circumstances involving long-serving

contractual employees appointed against sanctioned posts, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court directed regularization and held that the

State cannot deny constitutional protection merely on the ground

of contractual nomenclature.

21.It is next contended that the impugned order is also liable to be

set aside as it is in direct contravention of binding precedents of

this Court. Learned counsel submits that an identical order had

earlier been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ

Appeal No. 265 of 2017 (Smt. Nidhi Das v. State of

Chhattisgarh and others, decided on 11.12.2018), wherein the

claims of similarly placed Demonstrators were directed to be

considered. It is submitted that despite being aware of the

aforesaid binding precedents, the respondents have passed the

impugned order on identical grounds, which amounts to disregard

of judicial discipline.

22.Finally, learned counsel would submit that the action of the

respondent-State in continuing the petitioners for nearly 18 years,

15

extracting work from them on sanctioned posts, and thereafter

seeking to displace them by fresh recruitment or by

accommodating other persons, is wholly arbitrary and violative of

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that

the petitioners have crossed the upper age limit for alternative

employment and have devoted the prime years of their lives in

service of the State, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Reliance is also placed on State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh,

(2017) 1 SCC 148, Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of

Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238, and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v.

Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 15 SCC 236, to contend that the

State cannot exploit employees indefinitely and deny them

security of tenure. On these grounds, it is prayed that the

impugned order be quashed and appropriate directions be issued

to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in

accordance with law.

23.Learned counsel also placed very recent pronouncements of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Sagir and others v.

Nagar Nigam Kanpur, passed in Civil Appeal arising out of

SLP (C) Nos.14760-14762/2024 decided on 16.03.2026,

Abhishek Sharma v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and

others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 342 and Pawan Kumar and

others v. Union of India and others, passed in Civil Appeal

arising out of SLP (C) No.29214/2019 decided on 13.02.2026, to

buttress his submissions.

16

24.On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government

Advocate along with Mr. Arpit Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer

appearing for the State, vehemently opposed the submissions

advanced on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions and

submitted that the present writ petitions, being based on identical

facts and seeking similar reliefs, are liable to be dismissed as

being devoid of merit and substance. It is contended that the

petitioners in both petitions have failed to establish any

enforceable legal or statutory right in their favour so as to invoke

the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. The relief sought, particularly for

regularization and for issuance of a direction to frame a policy, lies

within the exclusive domain of the State and cannot be claimed as

a matter of right.

25.Learned State counsel would submit that in both writ petitions, the

respective petitioners were appointed purely on contractual basis

under the applicable Rules and terms of agreement. Their

appointments were for a fixed tenure, subject to renewal from time

to time, and clearly stipulate that such engagement would

continue only till regular appointments are made or till the

contractual period expires. It is argued that the continuation of the

petitioners for a considerable length of time on the basis of

successive extensions does not confer any vested right upon

them for absorption or regularization. Their service conditions are

governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract

17

Appointment) Rules, 2012 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2012’) and the

specific terms of their contractual engagement, which

unequivocally negate any claim for permanency. It is further

contended that the petitioners, instead of participating

successfully in the regular recruitment process, are attempting to

secure entry into regular service through judicial intervention,

which is impermissible in law. Learned counsel submits that some

of the petitioners had in fact participated in the direct recruitment

process pursuant to advertisement dated 30.07.2014 after

obtaining No Objection Certificates from the competent authority,

but having failed therein, they are now seeking regularization

through the present writ petitions. Such a course would amount to

permitting backdoor entry into public employment, which is

violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and

contrary to the settled principles governing public recruitment.

26.Learned State counsel has placed heavy reliance on the

Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and others,

(2006) 4 SCC 1, particularly paragraphs 47 and 52, to contend

that a temporary or contractual employee, being fully aware of the

nature of appointment, cannot claim regularization as a matter of

right nor invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation. It is further

submitted that issuance of a writ of mandamus presupposes the

existence of a legal right and a corresponding duty on the part of

the State, both of which are conspicuously absent in the present

18

case. Reliance is also placed on Yogesh Mahajan v. Professor

R.C. Deka, (2018) 3 SCC 218 and Rajasthan State Road

Transport Corporation v. Paramjeet Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 250,

to reiterate that contractual employees do not have any vested

right to continuation or renewal of their contractual engagement.

27.It is lastly submitted that both the writ petitions are premature and

based merely on apprehension, as no adverse order of

termination or discontinuation has been passed against the

petitioners in either case. The petitioners continue to work on

contractual basis subject to extensions, and therefore no cause of

action has arisen warranting interference by this Court. It is also

contended that the petitions suffer from misjoinder of parties and

causes of action, as the petitioners were appointed at different

points of time under separate contractual arrangements. Further,

as per the existing cadre strength, a substantial number of posts

are already filled through regular recruitment, and the remaining

contractual engagements are purely stop-gap arrangements. In

view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that both the writ

petitions deserve to be dismissed.

28.Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the

Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC), while

adopting the submissions advanced by the learned Government

Advocate for the State, submits that the role of the Commission is

confined strictly to recruitment to regular posts in accordance with

19

the constitutional mandate and the relevant statutory rules. It is

contended that the petitioners were never appointed through a

selection process conducted by the CGPSC for regular

appointment, and therefore, no right accrues in their favour to

seek regularization through the Commission. The claim of the

petitioners, if any, lies against the State Government and not

against the Commission. It is further submitted that any direction

for regularization or absorption of the petitioners without following

the due process of recruitment through the CGPSC would be in

direct contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India. The Commission cannot be compelled to recognize or

regularize contractual appointments made dehors the prescribed

recruitment procedure. Hence, in absence of any statutory

obligation or role attributable to the CGPSC in the engagement of

the petitioners, the present writ petitions, insofar as they concern

the Commission, deserve to be dismissed.

29.I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at

considerable length and have bestowed my thoughtful

consideration to the rival submissions advanced across the Bar.

I have also carefully perused the pleadings filed in all the

connected writ petitions, the annexures appended thereto, the

original records made available by the learned State counsel, as

well as the statutory provisions and notifications governing the

field.

20

30.Upon consideration of the pleadings and material placed on

record, it emerges that the petitioners were appointed as

Demonstrators pursuant to a due process of selection initiated

through public advertisement during the years 2008–2009. Their

appointments were made against sanctioned posts in

Government Nursing Colleges under the applicable Rules framed

under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Though the initial

appointments were contractual in nature for a limited period, the

services of the petitioners were continuously extended from time

to time, and they have remained in uninterrupted service for more

than 16–17 years.

31.It is also not in dispute that throughout this long tenure, the

petitioners have discharged duties identical in nature to those

performed by regular employees holding the same posts. The

record does not disclose any adverse remarks regarding their

performance. On the contrary, their services have been

repeatedly extended by the competent authorities, which prima

facie reflects satisfactory discharge of duties and continued

requirement of their services against the sanctioned posts.

32.The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present

batch of writ petitions is whether the petitioners, having been

appointed through a process consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of

the Constitution of Indian and having rendered long years of

continuous service against sanctioned posts, are entitled to

21

consideration for regularization/absorption, and whether the

rejection of their claim vide order dated 29.12.2022 is sustainable

in law.

33.The impugned order dated 29.12.2022 reveals that the claim of

the petitioners has been rejected primarily on the ground that

there exists no policy or provision for regularization of contractual

employees. The said reasoning, in the considered opinion of this

Court, cannot be accepted in a mechanical manner, inasmuch as

the absence of a policy cannot be a ground to defeat a claim

which otherwise requires consideration in light of settled legal

principles governing the field.

34.At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the Constitution Bench

judgment in Umadevi (3) (supra), wherein a distinction has been

drawn between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. While illegal

appointments being those made dehors the constitutional scheme

without any selection process are not amenable to regularization,

irregular appointments, where substantial compliance with the

procedure has been followed, stand on a different footing and

may be considered for regularization subject to conditions.

35.The principles laid down in Umadevi (3) (supra) were

subsequently explained and clarified in M.L. Kesari (supra),

Jaggo (supra), Shripal (supra), Vinod Kumar (supra) and

Dharam Singh (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held

that if an employee has worked for ten years or more in a duly

22

sanctioned post and was appointed through a process consistent

with Article 14, though not strictly in accordance with the rules,

such case would fall within the exception contemplated in

Umadevi (supra) and would require consideration for

regularization, subject to fulfillment of eligibility conditions.

36.Recently, in Bhola Nath (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

again emphasized that where employees have been engaged

pursuant to a due selection process against sanctioned posts and

have rendered long and uninterrupted service for over a decade,

mere description of their engagement as “contractual” cannot be a

ground to indefinitely deny them consideration for regularization,

particularly when the State continues to avail their services. The

Court reiterated that the State cannot perpetuate ad-hocism and

defeat legitimate expectations arising from long and continuous

service by relying solely on contractual nomenclature. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the issue, has held as

under :-

“Limits on Perpetual Contractual

Engagements:

13.2. In the present case, the respondent-

State had engaged the services of the

appellants on sanctioned posts since the year

2012. It was only towards the end of the year

2022 that the respondents communicated that

no further extension of the appellants’

engagement was likely to be granted.

23

13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid

action is not only vitiated by arbitrariness but

is also in clear derogation of the equality

principles enshrined in Article 14 of the

Constitution. The respondent-State initially

engaged the appellants in their youth to

discharge public duties and functions. Having

rendered long and dedicated service, the

appellants cannot now be left to fend for

themselves, particularly when the

employment opportunities that may have

been available to them a decade ago are no

longer accessible owing to age constraints.

13.4. We are unable to discern any rational

basis for the respondent-State’s decision to

discontinue the appellants after nearly ten

years of continuous service. We are

conscious that the symbiotic-relationship

between the appellants and the respondent-

State was mutually beneficial, the State

derived the advantage of the appellants’

experience and institutional familiarity, while

the appellants remained in public service. In

such circumstances, any departure from a

long-standing practice of renewal, particularly

one that frustrates the legitimate expectation

of the employees, ought to be supported by

cogent reasons recorded in a speaking order.

13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a

conscious and reasoned one. An employee

who has satisfactorily discharged his duties

over several years and has been granted

24

repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be

treated as surplus or undesirable. We are

unable to accept the justification advanced by

the respondents as the obligation of the

State, as a model employer, extends to fair

treatment of its employees irrespective of

whether their engagement is contractual or

regular.

13.6. This Court has, on several occasions,

deprecated the practice adopted by States of

engaging employees under the nominal

labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or

“temporary” in perpetuity and thereby

exploiting them by not regularizing their

positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, this

Court underscored that government-

departments must lead by example in

ensuring fair and stable employment, and

evolved the test of examining whether the

duties performed by such temporary

employees are integral to the day-to-day

functioning of the organization.

13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam and Vinod

Kumar v. Union of India, this Court

cautioned against a mechanical and blind

reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny

regularization to temporary employees in the

absence of statutory rules. It was held that

Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a

shield to legitimise exploitative engagements

continued for years without undertaking

regular recruitment. The Court further clarified

25

that Umadevi itself draws a distinction

between appointments that are “illegal” and

those that are merely “irregular”, the latter

being amenable to regularization upon

fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.

13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this

Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ ad-

hocism” adopted by States in their capacity

as employers. The Court criticised the

practice of outsourcing or informalizing

recruitment as a means to evade regular

employment obligations, observing that such

measures perpetuate precarious working

conditions while circumventing fair and lawful

engagement practices.

FINAL CONCLUSION:

14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing

paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions

as follows:

I. The respondent-State was not justified in

continuing the appellants on sanctioned

vacant posts for over a decade under the

nomenclature of contractual engagement

and thereafter denying them consideration

for regularization.

II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-

standing engagement solely on the basis of

contractual nomenclature, without either

recording cogent reasons or passing a

speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

26

III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar

claims for regularization cannot override

constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of

contractual terms does not amount to

waiver of fundamental rights, and

contractual stipulations cannot immunize

arbitrary State action from constitutional

scrutiny.

IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot

rely on contractual labels or mechanical

application of Umadevi (supra) to justify

prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-

serving employees in a manner

inconsistent with fairness, dignity and

constitutional governance.

V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we

direct the respondent-State to forthwith

regularize the services of all the appellants

against the sanctioned posts to which they

were initially appointed. The appellants

shall be entitled to all consequential service

benefits accruing from the date of this

judgment.”

37.The aforesaid aspect has also been considered and affirmed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar (supra), wherein the

Court reiterated that where employees have been engaged

against sanctioned posts and have rendered long years of

continuous service, the State cannot arbitrarily deny consideration

of their claim for regularization, particularly when such

engagement was not tainted by illegality. The Hon’ble Supreme

27

Court emphasized that fairness in State action requires that such

employees be at least considered under an appropriate policy

framework and held as under :-

“9. Besides the aforesaid aspects, we find that

the law laid down by this Court in Jaggo

(supra) supports the case of the appellants in

their prayer for regularization. In paragraphs

13, 20, 21 and 26, it has been held as under:

“13. The claim by the respondents that

these were not regular posts lacks merit, as

the nature of the work performed by the

appellants was perennial and fundamental

to the functioning of the offices. The

recurring nature of these duties

necessitates their classification as regular

posts, irrespective of how their initial

engagements were labelled. It is also

noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of

these same tasks to private agencies after

the appellants’ termination demonstrates

the inherent need for these services. This

act of outsourcing, which effectively

replaced one set of workers with another,

further underscores that the work in

question was neither temporary nor

occasional.

20. It is well established that the decision in

Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to

penalize employees who have rendered

long years of service fulfilling ongoing and

necessary functions of the State or its

28

instrumentalities. The said judgment sought

to prevent backdoor entries and illegal

appointments that circumvent constitutional

requirements. However, where

appointments were not illegal but possibly

“irregular,” and where employees had

served continuously against the backdrop

of sanctioned functions for a considerable

period, the need for a fair and humane

resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged,

continuous, and unblemished service

performing tasks inherently required on a

regular basis can, over the time, transform

what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into

a scenario demanding fair regularization. In

a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod

Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India &

Ors. 5, it was held that held that procedural

formalities cannot be used to deny

regularization of service to an employee

whose appointment was termed

"temporary" but has performed the same

duties as performed by the regular

employee over a considerable period in the

capacity of the regular employee. The

relevant paras of this judgement have been

reproduced below:

“6. The application of the judgment in

Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does

not fit squarely with the facts at hand,

given the specific circumstances under

which the appellants were employed and

have continued their service. The reliance

29

on procedural formalities at the outset

cannot be used to perpetually deny

substantive rights that have accrued over

a considerable period through continuous

service. Their promotion was based on a

specific notification for vacancies and a

subsequent circular, followed by a

selection process involving written tests

and interviews, which distinguishes their

case from the appointments through back

door entry as discussed in the case of

Uma Devi (supra).

7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi

(supra) also distinguished between

“irregular” and “illegal” appointments

underscoring the importance of

considering certain appointments even if

were not made strictly in accordance with

the prescribed Rules and Procedure,

cannot be said to have been made

illegally if they had followed the

procedures of regular appointments such

as conduct of written examinations or

interviews as in the present case…”

21. The High Court placed undue emphasis

on the initial label of the appellants’

engagements and the outsourcing decision

taken after their dismissal. Courts must look

beyond the surface labels and consider the

realities of employment: continuous, long-

term service, indispensable duties, and

absence of any mala fide or illegalities in

30

their appointments. In that light, refusing

regularization simply because their original

terms did not explicitly state so, or because

an outsourcing policy was belatedly

introduced, would be contrary to principles

of fairness and equity.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra)

sought to curtail the practice of backdoor

entries and ensure appointments adhered

to constitutional principles, it is regrettable

that its principles are often misinterpreted

or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of

long-serving employees. This judgment

aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and

“irregular” appointments. It categorically

held that employees in irregular

appointments, who were engaged in duly

sanctioned posts and had served

continuously for more than ten years,

should be considered for regularization as a

one-time measure. However, the laudable

intent of the judgment is being subverted

when institutions rely on its dicta to

indiscriminately reject the claims of

employees, even in cases where their

appointments are not illegal, but merely

lack adherence to procedural formalities.

Government departments often cite the

judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that

no vested right to regularization exists for

temporary employees, overlooking the

judgment's explicit acknowledgment of

cases where regularization is appropriate.

31

This selective application distorts the

judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively

weaponizing it against employees who

have rendered indispensable services over

decades.”

10. The aforesaid observations are sufficient

to hold that the Tribunal was not justified in

denying relief to the appellants by relying upon

the decision in Umadevi (3) and Ors. (supra).

The High Court also erred in affirming the

decision of the Tribunal. The appellants are

entitled to similar reliefs as granted by this

Court in Ravi Verma and Ors. (supra) as well

as in Raman Kumar and Ors. (supra).

11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the judgment

of the High Court dated 26.08.2019 in M.P.

No.3460/2018 is set aside. The services of the

appellants be regularized from 01.07.2006 on

the same terms as made applicable in Ravi

Verma and Ors. (supra) as well as in Raman

Kumar and Ors. (supra). The benefits be

released in favour of the appellants within a

period of three months from today.

12. The applicants in Interim Application

No.42233/2020, who were impleaded as party

respondents in view of the order dated

15.03.2021 are also entitled to the aforesaid

reliefs.”

38.Further, in Abhishek Sharma (supra), while dealing with a similar

controversy relating to long-serving contractual employees, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the State cannot take

32

advantage of the contractual nature of appointment after having

utilized the services of such employees for a prolonged period. It

was held that where the appointments are not illegal and the

employees have continued for a considerable duration, their claim

deserves due consideration in accordance with law, rather than

being rejected in a mechanical manner and observed as under :-

“10.8. More recently, a 7-Judge Bench of this

Court, in State of Punjab and others v.

Davinder Singh and others, had occasion to

consider the permissibility of sub-classification

within the framework of affirmative action, in

the context of the equality mandate under

Article 14 of the Constitution. While delineating

the parameters governing the creation of

classifications without transgressing the

principle of equality before the law, this Court

observed as follows: -

“84. Article 14 employs two expressions —

equality before the law and equal protection

of the laws. Both different in content and

sweep. “Equality before the law”, an

expression derived from the English

Common law, entails absence of special

privileges for any individual within the

territory. It does not mean that the same

law should apply to everyone, but that the

same law should apply to those who are

similarly situated. The expression “equal

protection of the laws” means that among

equals, laws must be equally administered.

33

It enjoins the State with the power to

reasonably classify those who are

differently placed. The mandate of “equal

protection of laws” casts a positive

obligation on the State to ensure that

everyone may enjoy equal protection of the

laws, and no one is unfairly denied this

protection. In essence, the guarantee of

equality entails that all persons in like

circumstances must be treated alike. That

there must be a parity of treatment under

parity of conditions. Equality does not entail

sameness. The State is allowed to classify

in a manner that is not discriminatory. The

doctrine of classification gives content to

the guarantee of equal protection of the

laws. Under this approach, the focus is on

the equality of results or opportunities over

equality of treatment.

85. The Constitution permits valid

classification if two conditions are fulfilled.

First, there must be an intelligible differentia

which distinguishes persons grouped

together from others left out of the group.

The phrase “intelligible differentia” means

difference capable of being understood.

The difference is capable of being

understood when there is a yardstick to

differentiate the class included and others

excluded from the group. In the absence of

the yardstick, the differentiation would be

without a basis and hence, unreasonable.

The basis of classification must be

34

deducible from the provisions of the statute;

surrounding circumstances or matters of

common knowledge. In making the

classification, the State is free to recognise

degrees of harm. Though the classification

need not be mathematical in precision,

there must be some difference between the

persons grouped and the persons left out,

and the difference must be real and

pertinent. The classification is

unreasonable if there is “little or no

difference”. Second, the differentia must

have a rational relation to the object sought

to be achieved by the law, that is, the basis

of classification must have a nexus with the

object of the classification.”

(emphasis supplied)

Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, does

not fetter the power of the State to frame

classifications, for equals alone are entitled to

equal treatment. Persons who are not similarly

situated cannot claim parity. However, the said

principle does not confer upon the State an

unfettered licence to carve out artificial

distinctions within a class of persons who are

otherwise similarly situated. Any such artificial

or unreasonable classification would strike at

the very core of the right to equality and

violate the mandate of Article 14 of the

Constitution.

***

35

12. In light of the foregoing analysis and

discussion, we summarise our conclusions as

under: -

I. Nomenclature is not determinative of

constitutional entitlement. Where employees

appointed on an “academic arrangement”

basis are similarly situated to those engaged

on ad hoc, contractual or consolidated basis

in terms of duties, tenure, conditions of

service and mode of appointment, denial of

equal treatment solely on the basis of

nomenclature is impermissible under Article

14 of the Constitution of India.

***

V. The State, as a model employer, cannot

adopt artificial classifications to deny

statutory benefits. Repackaging contractual

engagements under a different

nomenclature, while denying regularization,

violates the equality mandate under Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution.”

39.Very recently, in Mohammad Sagir (supra), while examining the

issue of regularization, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated

that the principles laid down in Umadevi (supra) cannot be

applied in a rigid or hyper-technical manner so as to defeat

legitimate claims arising from long and continuous service. The

Court underscored that where employees have worked for

substantial periods against sanctioned posts and their

appointments are not per se illegal, the State is obligated to adopt

36

a fair and reasonable approach in considering their cases for

regularization or by framing an appropriate scheme and held as

under :-

“13. We are conscious of the law that the

burden to prove that a workman had worked

continuously for 240 days in the preceding one

year prior to the alleged retrenchment lies on

the workman. However, each case is to be

decided on its own facts. In a case where

engagement is for a substantial length of time,

a presumption would arise that the work for

which the workmen is engaged is of a

perennial nature and there exists a vacant

post. In the instant case, there is no dispute

that workmen were initially engaged in the

year 1993 and their services were dispensed

with in the year 2006. It is difficult to accept

that for that long period of time they were only

working as substitutes for regular workers. In

such circumstances, when they had led

evidence regarding their continuous service

and a direction was issued to the employer to

produce the relevant records and, despite

such direction, records were not produced, if

the Labour Court had raised an adverse

inference, the same could not have been

faulted.

14. We are, therefore, of the view that the

judgment and order passed by the High Court

is liable to be set aside. However, merely

because the retrenchment procedure was not

37

followed may not automatically entitle the

workmen to be reinstated with full back wages.

15. In this case, though, we are of the view

that the workmen were entitled to

reinstatement as they had served for over a

decade, however, whether they were entitled

to full back-wages/ arrears or lesser amount,

requires adjudication based on assessment

whether they were gainfully employed

elsewhere in the interregnum. Consequently,

we deem it appropriate to remand the matter

to the High Court to decide on the entitlement

for back-wages. Insofar as direction in the

award(s) to reinstate the said workmen is

concerned. the same is upheld.”

40.Reverting to the facts of the present cases, and upon a holistic

consideration of the pleadings, documents placed on record, and

the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the

respective parties, this Court finds that the foundational facts are

largely undisputed. The petitioners in both the writ petitions were

appointed as Demonstrators pursuant to a duly notified selection

process conducted in the years 2008–2009. Their appointments

were made against sanctioned posts in Government Nursing

Colleges after following a procedure consistent with the mandate

of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners

possessed the requisite qualifications, participated in a process of

selection conducted by duly constituted committees, and were

appointed on the basis of merit.

38

41.It is further evident from the record that although the petitioners

were initially appointed on contractual basis, their services have

been continuously extended from time to time for more than 16–

17 years without any break. During this entire period, the

petitioners have discharged duties identical to those performed by

regular employees and have continued to serve against

sanctioned posts. There is no material on record to suggest that

their appointments were tainted by any illegality, fraud or

backdoor entry. On the contrary, the consistent extension of their

services by the State itself demonstrates the continued necessity

of their services and satisfaction of their performance.

42.Insofar as WPS No.1465/2023 is concerned, the petitioners

therein have approached this Court challenging the rejection of

their claim for regularization vide order dated 29.12.2022 and

seeking a direction for consideration of their case in light of settled

legal principles. Similarly, in WPS No.3647/2023, the petitioners,

who are identically situated, have raised the same grievance

arising out of the same impugned action and have sought

analogous reliefs. Thus, both the writ petitions arise out of a

common cause of action and involve identical questions of fact

and law, namely, the entitlement of long-serving contractual

Demonstrators to be considered for regularization.

43.The stand taken by the respondent-State in opposing the petitions

is primarily premised on the contractual nature of appointment

39

and absence of any policy for regularization. However, as

discussed hereinabove, such a stand cannot be accepted in a

mechanical or absolute manner. The law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), as subsequently explained

and clarified in M.L. Kesari (supra) and further reiterated in recent

judgments including Jaggo (supra), Vinod Kumar (supra),

Shripal (supra), Dharam Singh (supra), Bhola Nath (supra),

Pawan Kumar (supra), Abhishek Sharma (supra) and

Mohammad Sagir (supra), makes it abundantly clear that the

State cannot perpetuate a regime of ad-hocism by continuing

employees for decades and thereafter deny them consideration

for regularization by relying solely on the contractual label of their

engagement.

44.The distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments, as

carved out in Umadevi (supra), assumes significance in the

present case. The appointments of the petitioners, having been

made through a transparent selection process against sanctioned

posts, cannot be termed as illegal. At the highest, even if any

procedural irregularity is assumed, the same would not disentitle

the petitioners from consideration for regularization, particularly

when they have rendered long and uninterrupted service

exceeding more than one and a half decades.

45.The law is now well settled that where employees have worked for

more than ten years against sanctioned posts without the

40

protection of any interim order, and their appointments are not

illegal, they are entitled to be considered for regularization as a

one-time measure. The petitioners in both the writ petitions clearly

satisfy the said parameters. The State, by continuing the

petitioners for such a prolonged period and extracting work of a

perennial nature, cannot now turn around and deny them

consideration on the ground that no policy exists.

46.The impugned order dated 29.12.2022, whereby the

representations of the petitioners have been rejected, reflects a

mechanical approach and non-application of mind. The rejection

is founded solely on the absence of a policy, without examining

whether the petitioners fall within the category of employees

entitled to consideration under the principles laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court. Such an approach, in the considered

opinion of this Court, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

47.The contention of the State that the petitioners have no

enforceable right and that the petitions are premature also does

not merit acceptance. The rejection of their claim vide the

impugned order constitutes a clear cause of action. Moreover, the

right asserted by the petitioners is not an absolute right to

regularization, but a right to fair and lawful consideration of their

case, which is well recognized in service jurisprudence.

48.This Court is also mindful of the fact that the petitioners have now

crossed a substantial part of their service life and have devoted

41

the prime years of their career in service of the State. Denial of

consideration at this stage, after utilizing their services for nearly

two decades, would not only be inequitable but would also offend

the principles of fairness and reasonableness which are integral to

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

49.In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon a careful

consideration of the authoritative pronouncements rendered by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to hereinabove, this Court

arrives at a firm and well-reasoned conclusion that the petitioners

in both the writ petitions have successfully established their case.

The legal position being settled and the factual matrix being clear

and undisputed, the petitioners are held entitled to the reliefs

sought for, and accordingly, both the writ petitions deserve to be

allowed.

50.Consequently, and in light of the reasons recorded hereinabove,

the impugned order dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure P-1) cannot be

sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed and set aside.

The respondents are, therefore, directed to take immediate and

appropriate steps to regularize the services of all the petitioners

against the duly sanctioned posts to which they were originally

appointed. Such exercise shall be carried out expeditiously,

without any avoidable delay. The petitioners shall further be

entitled to all consequential service benefits flowing from such

regularization, including but not limited to continuity of service,

42

proper fixation in the applicable regular pay scale, and all other

attendant and ancillary benefits.

51.In the ultimate analysis, and for the reasons recorded

hereinabove, both the writ petitions being WPS No.1465/2023 and

WPS No.3647/2023, stand allowed. The reliefs as prayed for by

the petitioners are hereby granted in terms of the directions and

observations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this order.

All pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

52.There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Yogesh

The date when the

judgment is

reserved

The date when the

judgment is

pronounced

The date when the judgment is

uploaded on the website

Operative Full

01.04.2026 17.04.2026 ------ 17.04.2026

43

Head Note

Long and uninterrupted service rendered against duly sanctioned

posts, pursuant to a proper and transparent selection process, cannot

be disregarded merely on the ground that the appointments are

described as “contractual”. Any rejection of the claim for regularization,

if made in a cursory or mechanical manner without due consideration of

these relevant factors, would be legally unsustainable.