Long-term contractual employees serving on sanctioned posts acquire a legitimate expectation of regularization. The State, acting as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels to arbitrarily discard long-serving staff in favor of fresh direct recruitment, as doing so violates the constitutional mandate of equality and fairness.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Ms. Krovi Tsukru, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both the writ appeals as well as learned counsel, Mr. T.B. Jamir along with Mr. I. Jamir, appearing for the respondents in both the writ appeals.

2. Both the appeals are directed against the common Judgment & Order dated 27.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/38/2023 and WP(C)/39/2023.

3. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.11.2024 directed that the petitioners in both the writ petitions should be regularized from the date of their initial appointment and further set aside the Advertisement No. 05/2023 dated Nil, for filling up the vacancy 23030503311 and 203030502311. However, liberty was granted to the Respondent UPSC to start the procedure of recruitment for the other posts. The appellants, being aggrieved by the said directions have approached this Court by filing the present appeal raising various grounds of objection which are enumerated hereinunder:

i. Selection of permanent staff can be made through UPSC only by a process of conducting examination and interviews.

ii. The engagement of the respondents in the present appeals in the year 2006 and 2007 were exclusively on terms and conditions that the engagement shall be purely on contractual basis which the Respondents herein have also duly accepted.

iii. The question of regularization of the contractual period of the Respondents herein do not arise at all because the Recruitment Rules of 2007 prescribed appointment on deputation only whereas the Recruitment Rules of 2022 prescribes appointment on direct recruitment only. The Respondents further do not meet the various conditions laid down in the Recruitment Rules of 2007 as well as 2022. It was also contended that had the Respondents herein met the conditions of the Recruitment Rules of 2007 or 2022, even also they would have to qualify and compete in the examination/screening/interview test conducted by the UPSC.

iv. Further to that it is also contended that the contractual appointments of the Respondents ought not to be regularized as they were not appointed by following the proper selection procedure as per the various conditions of the Recruitment Rules; the Respondents are seeking regularization of the contractual periods against Group A posts (pay Level-11 and 10) not Group C and Group D posts. Group A posts can only be filled up by the UPSC. It is further contended that if regularization is permitted to the Respondents, it would be a backdoor entry into government services and in violation of equal opportunity in public employment. It is further contended that the Respondents never met the conditions of initial Recruitment Rules of 2007 and the amended Recruitment Rules of 2022 and if they are regularized it would open floodgates for other contractual employees all over India.

4. Taking into account the various grounds of objections as mentioned hereinabove to the common Judgment & Order dated 27.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge, we find it relevant to take into account the brief facts which led to the filing of both the writ petitions.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASES:

WP(C)/38/2023

5. An Advertisement dated Nil was issued by the Central Institute of Horticulture, Department