Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 436
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JJ.
Keshav Dutt & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Delhi Tourism & Transport Development Corporation Limited & Anr – Respondents
LPA 307 of 2015 & CM APPL 9205 of 2015
Decided On : 19-06-2026
For the Appellants :Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Mr. Ashish, Mr. Monu Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Prashnot Chander Sen, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddhant Nath and Ms Vanisha Mehta, Advocates.
Regularization of irregularly appointed employees is only permissible as a one-time measure if they are qualified, occupy a sanctioned post, and have completed ten years of service without court intervention; employees failing to meet this mandatory ten-year threshold are ineligible for relief.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Regularization of irregular appointments - Requirements for one-time regularization - Employees must be duly qualified, appointed against sanctioned posts, and have completed at least ten years of service without intervention from courts or tribunals. (Paras 15, 16, 18)
(B) Service Law - Temporary appointments - Right to regularization - Appointments made for a specific limited period pursuant to an advertisement do not vest a right to permanent status or regular appointment, as such positions are temporary by nature. (Paras 2, 13)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were initially appointed against sanctioned posts for a limited duration pursuant to an advertisement. Despite their services being extended over time, the total period of employment amounted to approximately seven years. The appellants sought regularization based on legal precedents that provide for a one-time measure to regularize irregularly appointed employees.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the applicants failed to meet the critical threshold of completing ten years of service as required by the prevailing Constitution Bench mandate. Consequently, the court found it unnecessary to delve into the nature of the initial appointment, as the failure to fulfill the duration criterion was sufficient to warrant dismissal.
Issues: The main issues considered were whether temporary employees appointed for a fixed term are entitled to regularization after a period of extended service, and whether the appellants satisfied the specific criteria established by the Supreme Court regarding duration of service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the mandate for one-time regularization is strictly contingent upon the completion of at least ten years of service by an employee in an irregular but qualified appointment. As the threshold of ten years had not been met, the claim for regularization was held to be without merit.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background regarding the appellants' tenure and previous litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. conflicting arguments concerning the applicability of the supreme court's umadevi judgment to short-term temporary appointments. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. requirement of a minimum ten-year service period for regularization as prescribed by the supreme court in umadevi. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. dismissal of the appeal due to the appellants' failure to meet the mandatory service duration. (Para 19) |
| 5. judicial exclusion of redundant arguments when primary thresholds are not met. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. This intra court appeal lays a challenge to the order dated 07.04.2015 (impugned order) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3295/2015 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein by stating in paragraph 15 as under:-
“15. It is therefore clear that the ratio of the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) really prevents regularization of persons who have been appointed pursuant to such an advertisement and which advertisement itself required employment only for a limited period, and therefore such persons who have been appointed for a limited period in terms of the advertisement requiring their appointments for limited periods, cannot seek regularization.”
2. The appellants numbering 11 had approached the learned Single Judge seeking regularisation of their services with the respondent no.1 / Delhi Tourism & Transport Development Corporation (DTTDC). Their case was that they were meeting the eligibility criteria/qualifications when they were appointed against the sanctioned posts of helper / attendant. It may be stated here that the case of the DTTDC was that it had approved the project of Delhi Haat, which was required to be completed / commissioned by September 2007. As a result thereof, four posts of helper were created and approved by the CEO of the DTTDC. On 26.06.2007, an advertisement was published stating helpers / attendants are required for a short period. The appellants, who were selected pursuant to the advertisement, were issued the memorandum, which provided that their services would be governed by the DTTDC Staff Service Rules, 1996. It was clarified that the appointments were only for a period of six months and would not entitle the appointees any right or claim of further continuation or regular appointment.
3. On 05.07.2007, the advertisement dated 26.06.2007 was challenged in this Court in W.P.(C) No.4766/2007. The Court held that as there was an urgent need for filling up of the posts on a short term basis, the same could not be subject to judicial review. There is no dispute that the services of the appellants were extended from time to time and was further extended for six months between 01.07.2014 till 31.12.2014. It is also the case of the appellants that they were given increments from time to time as well as reimbursement of the tuition fees.
4. The appellants had also filed another W.P.(C) No.8855/2014 for regularisation of their services. The said writ petition was not pressed on merits with respect to the regularisation. However, the age relaxation for the next recruitment process was sought. The said writ petition was dismissed as far as the relief of regularisation was concerned, but the age relaxation was granted for the next recruitment process to be undertaken. The intra court appeal being LPA 105/2015 was filed against the order passed in W.P.(C) No.8855/2014 on the ground that the pleadings in the writ petition were not clear about the appointments being irregular and therefore, the relief of regularisation, be granted. Liberty was granted to the appellants therein to file a fresh petition seeking regularisation provided that the cause of action was pleaded therein to attract the principles of law laid down in paragraph no.53 of the judgment of the Supre
