The court ruled that long-serving contractual employees cannot be denied regularization based solely on contractual labels, emphasizing fair treatment under constitutional principles.

ORDER :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. By filing the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 25.10.2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby it has been held that the petitioners’ appointments would not be treated as regular appointments and would continue to remain contractual in nature. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“10.1 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and quash the impugned order dated 25.10.2022 (Annexure P/1) thereby saying that the petitioners' appointment would not be altered as a regular appointment and would remain contractual in nature, in a most arbitrary manner.

10.2 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to consider the cases of petitioners for being treated as regular incumbents since their initial appointments with all consequential benefits associated therewith including the arrears of pay and seniority.

10.3 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the respondent Department had earlier issued a joint advertisement in the year 2012 inviting applications for appointment on various Class-III and IV posts, including the post of Data Entry Operator. The said posts of Data Entry Operator were already sanctioned on regular basis for the offices of Block Education Officers under the Tribal Welfare Department. By that time, the ban imposed on regular recruitment in the State had already been lifted vide order dated 18.09.2007 and subsequent communications, thereby permitting regular recruitment on such posts without requiring consultation with the Finance Department.

3. Despite the vacancies being regularly sanctioned and the ban on regular recruitment having been lifted, the advertisement reflected the posts of Data Entry Operator as contractual. The petitioners, being unaware of these developments, participated in the selection process and, upon due selection, were appointed in the years 2012–2013 on fixed remuneration. Significantly, their appointment orders contained a clause placing them on probation for two years, which is a condition ordinarily applicable to regular appointments.

4. The petitioners have been continuously discharging their duties for more than ten years against sanctioned vacancies without any break. As no order extending probation or confirming their services was issued, they submitted representations dated 21.01.2022 and 20.04.2022 seeking to be treated as regular appointees. Earlier, this Court, in WP(S) No. 4287/2022, vide order dated 24.06.2022, directed the respondents to consider and decide their claim. However, the respondents rejected their representations vide impugned order dated 25.10.2022 in a cryptic manner, reiterating that their engagement would remain contractual.

5. Being aggrieved by the said arbitrary and non-speaking order, despite long and continuous service against regularly sanctioned posts, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 25.10.2022 is wholly arbitrary, cryptic and unsustainable in law, as the respondents have failed to consider the material facts and binding government instructions while rejecting the claim of the petitioners. It is contended that the posts of Data Entry Operator against which the petitioners were appointed were duly sanctioned on regular basis much prior to the issuance of the advertise