The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on court intervention in public employment, emphasizing the conditions for regularization and the need for judicial restraint in encroaching into executive or legislative functions.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by one Sh. Balbir Singh who is the General Secretary of DESU Mazdoor Sangh of Trade Union. As per the statement of the counsel for the petitioner made before me petitioner represents about 35,000 contractual workers who are working with the instrumentalities of State represented by respondent Nos.2 to 8 and such persons are members of the Trade Union of whom the petitioner is the General Secretary.

2. The following reliefs are claimed in this writ petition:-

“a) direct the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, its instrumentalities and DTL, IPGCL-PPCL, NDPL/TPDDL, BYPL and BRPL to frame an scheme to bring the said workers on their strength of permanent employees. b) direct the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, its instrumentalities and DTL, IPGCL-PPCL, NDPL/TPDDL, BYPL and BRPL to frame a policy to recruit the required personnel in future. c) direct the respondent No.1 to issue notification prohibiting contract employment in the power sector companies. d) pass such any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The first relief which is prayed is that contractual workers should be made permanent employees by bringing in a scheme. Second relief which is claimed is of direction to instrumentalities of State who are the respondents to frame a policy for future recruitment. The third and final relief which is claimed is that instrumentalities of State must not appoint contractual employees.

4. Before I proceed to discus on the arguments which have been urged, it is necessary at this stage to reproduce the ratio of two Supreme Court judgments. First is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 and second is the judgment in the case of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408.

5. In the case of Umadevi (supra) the following ratio has been laid down:-

“(I) The questions to be asked before regularization are:- (a)(i) Was there a sanctioned post (court cannot order creation of posts because finances of the state may go haywire), (ii) is there a vacancy, (iii) are the persons qualified persons and (iv) are the appointments through regular recruitment process of calling all possible persons and which process involves inter-se competition among the candidates (b) A court can condone an irregularity in the appointment procedure only if the irregularity does not go to the root of the matter.

(II) For sanctioned posts having vacancies, such posts have to be filled by regular recruitment process of prescribed procedure otherwise, the constitutional mandate flowing from Articles 14,16,309, 315, 320 etc is violated.

(III) In case of existence of necessary circumstances the government has a right to appoint contract employees or casual labour or employees for a project, but, such persons form a class in themselves and they cannot claim equality(except possibly for equal pay for equal work) with regular employees who form a separate class. Such temporary employees cannot claim legitimate expectation of absorption/regularization as they knew when they were appointed that they were temporary inasmuch as the government did not give and nor could have given an assurance of regularization without the regular recruitment process being followed. Such irregularly appointed persons cannot claim to be regularized alleging violation of Article 21. Also the equity in favour of the millions who await public employment through the regular recruitment process outweighs the equity in favour of the limited number of irregularly appointed persons who claim regularization.

(IV) Once there are vacancies in sanctioned posts such vacancies cannot be filled in except without regular recruitment process, and thus neither the court nor the executive can frame a scheme to absorb or regularize persons appointed to such posts without following the