The evolution of employment conditions over time, continuous service, and selection processes mirroring regular recruitment can warrant reclassification from temporary to regular status, emphasizing equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.

ORDER :

Vikram Nath, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.03.2016, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42688 of 2001 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42692 of 2001, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, dated 21.11.2001 were dismissed. The Tribunal's judgment negated the appellants' plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of 'Accounts Clerk' against which they were temporarily appointed. Despite being appointed for what was termed a temporary or scheme-based engagement, the appellants have been continuously working in these positions from 1992 till the present, spanning a period exceeding 25 years.

3. Pursuant to a notification dated 21.02.1991, the appellants were initially appointed to ex-cadre posts of Accounts Clerks after a selection process involving written tests and viva voce interviews. After the rejection of their representation for regularization to the Divisional Railway Manager in 1999, the appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Applications. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.11.2001 dismissed the applications of the appellants, concluding that their appointments were temporary and for a specific scheme, thus not entitling them to regularization or absorption into permanent posts. Thereafter, the appellants approached the High Court and the High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed their Writ Petitions observing that the appellants' employment under a temporary scheme could not confer upon them the rights akin to those held by permanent employees and relied upon the judgement of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, which held that temporary or casual employees do not have a fundamental right to be absorbed into service.

4. The appellants have approached this Court arguing that the High Court erred in its judgment by failing to recognize the substantive nature of their duties, which align with regular employment rather than the temporary or scheme-based roles they were originally appointed for. Furthermore, their promotion by a regularly constituted Departmental Promotional Committee, the selection process they underwent, and the continuous nature of their service for over a quarter of a century underscored their argument for regularization and that the High Court has incorrectly applied the principles from the case of Uma Devi (supra) to their situation.

5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status.

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 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 notif