The court emphasized the need for regular recruitment and highlighted the limitations of regularizing ad hoc appointments and the inability to invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post.

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No.13440 of 2004. The appellants had challenged the composite order dated 13.11.1997 passed in OA No.691/1995 and OA No.89/1996 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (in short 'CAT'). The respondents had moved CAT under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. 1985 (in short `the Act') seeking regularization of their services.

3. The stand of the respondents before the CAT was that they have been on duties as Data Entry Operators on contract basis and were being paid at a rate of Rs.10 per hour up to the maximum of Rs.50/- per day. They have sought for regularization placing reliance on the factum of long rendition of service.

4. In response, the present appellants contended that the respondents were not departmental employees and their grievances cannot be agitated before the CAT. Placing reliance on some other decisions rendered by the CAT, the stand of the present appellants was turned down and direction was given for considering their cases for appointment on regular basis.

5. A writ petition was filed before the High Court, by the appellants which was dismissed by the impugned order.

6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the decision of the High Court is contrary to law as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretarv. State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others (2006 (4) SCC l).

7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that since the CAT had relied on an earlier judgment and High Court rightly did not find any distinguishable feature, the appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

8. The question of regularization on the ground of long rendition of service was the subject matter in Uma Devi's case (supra). The said issue has been elaborately dealt with in the judgment. It was inter alia held as follows:

"33. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this Court on this aspect. By and large what emerges is that regular recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a contingency and ad hoc appointment can be made in a permanent vacancy, but the same should soon be followed by a regular recruitment and that appointments to non- available posts should not be taken note of for regularization. The cases directing regularization have mainly proceeded on the basis that having permitted the employee to work for some period, he should be absorbed, without really laying down any law to that effect, after discussing the constitutional scheme for public employment.

xxx xxx xxx

45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain -- not at arms length -- since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible. Given the exigencies of administration, and if impo