Contingency Driver's Regularization Claim Invalid Against Post Earmarked for Direct Recruitment Under Art. 309 Rules: Gauhati HC - 2025-12-02

Gauhati High Court Upholds Sanctity of Recruitment Rules, Dismisses Contingency Driver's Plea for Regularization

Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh – The Gauhati High Court, in a significant ruling on service jurisprudence, has dismissed a writ petition filed by a contingency driver seeking regularization of his service. The court, presided over by Justice Manish Choudhury, held that recruitment to a public post must strictly adhere to the governing statutory rules, and a claim for regularization cannot override a vacancy specifically earmarked for direct recruitment.

The decision reinforces the principle that while employees may have a right to be considered for promotion, this right can only be exercised in accordance with the established recruitment framework.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Mr. Robin Padung, had been serving as a Contingency Driver in the Department of Labour and Employment, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, since October 2012. After more than a decade of continuous service, he sought regularization, citing the precedent of another driver, Paresh Das, who was regularized in 2020.

Mr. Padung's hopes were dashed when the Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board (APSSB) issued an advertisement on August 5, 2025, to fill a vacant Driver (LMV) post in his department through direct recruitment. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court, requesting the cancellation of the advertisement and a directive for his regularization.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Stance: Mr. N. Pada, counsel for the petitioner, argued that with over 12 years of service, Mr. Padung had a legitimate expectation of being regularized. He contended that the department should have considered his long-standing service for promotion through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), as provided in the rules, before advertising the post for open competition.

State's Response: Representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Senior Government Advocate Mr. S. Tapin defended the APSSB's advertisement. He submitted that the recruitment process is governed by the ‘General Arunachal Service, Group

- ‘C’ Driver Recruitment Rules, 2006’, as amended in 2024. According to these rules:

- 50% of vacancies are to be filled by direct recruitment.

- 25% are reserved for promotion from Contingency Skilled Drivers via LDCE.

- 25% are reserved for promotion from Handymen via LDCE.

Mr. Tapin clarified that the department has three sanctioned driver posts. Two are already occupied through promotion. The third and currently vacant post, as per the roster, falls under the 50% direct recruitment quota, leaving the department no choice but to advertise it.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Manish Choudhury, after careful consideration of the arguments and rules, found no merit in the petitioner's claims. The court underscored that rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are legislative in character and must be followed rigorously.

The judgment highlighted several key points:

• Supremacy of Recruitment Rules: The court observed that the 2024 amendment to the recruitment rules clearly defines the method for filling vacancies. The case of Paresh Das, who was regularized before this amendment under a different government policy for employees with 20 years of service, could not be treated as a binding precedent. The amended rules now provide a specific pathway for promotion through LDCE, not regularization.

• Roster and Quota System: The court accepted the state's submission that the lone vacancy was correctly identified for direct recruitment based on the post-based roster. The petitioner's claim for promotion could only be considered when a vacancy arises within the 25% quota reserved for Contingency Drivers.

• Right to Consideration vs. Method of Recruitment: The court reiterated a well-settled legal principle in its judgment:

• > "Though a right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right but such right to be considered for promotion is to be considered in terms of the extant Recruitment Rules."

The court concluded that interfering with the selection process initiated by the APSSB would be contrary to the statutory rules.

Final Decision

The writ petition was dismissed as being "bereft of any merit." The court upheld the advertisement for direct recruitment and vacated any interim orders. However, it noted that the door is not permanently closed for the petitioner.

"It might be open for the petitioner to stake his claim for promotion to the post of Group

- ‘C’ Driver only when a vacancy arises in the quota reserved for filling up in the post of Group

- ‘C’ Driver by way of promotion from Contingency Drivers," the court concluded, providing a glimmer of hope for Mr. Padung's future career progression within the legal framework.