Public employees with irregular but legal appointments, having served over ten years, must be regularized based on established principles of administrative law and rights under the Constitution.

ORDER :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

“xxxxxxxx

1. That the respondent may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the humble petitioners against the sanctioned vacant posts of Class IV employees (Cook/Guard) which they have been holding for more than ten years, in strict compliance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2026 INSC 99), with all consequential benefits.

2. Issue a writ, order, or direction to quash and set aside any verbal or written orders that may attempt to discontinue the petitioners' services during the pendency of this litigation, holding such actions as arbitrary and retaliatory.

xxxxxxxxx”

2. Counsel for the parties, at the outset, jointly submit that the Coordinate Bench of this Court took up the identical issue; wherein, petitioners who were appointed at various class III and IV posts, were not being regularized. They jointly submit that vide order dated 01.05.2025 passed in SBCWP No.12662/2013 : Sumera Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., the Coordinate Bench had disposed of the writ petition in light of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in SBCWP No.7603/2023 : Giriraj Prasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“CONCLUSION

17. To sum up, the constitutional ethos mandate not merely procedural fairness but substantive justice. In a welfare State, the prolonged denial of regularization despite continuous service for decades borders on institutional exploitation, which ought not to be countenanced. The delay in implementing the directions of the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi by over three years (from April 2006 to July 2009) is a gross administrative default. Penalizing employees for this governmental inaction would amount to travesty of justice. Let it be reiterated a failure to strictly follow procedure in an otherwise valid and sanctioned appointment does not render the appointment illegal. Blurring this distinction undermines the very spirit of Uma Devi and subsequent jurisprudence. The doctrine of legitimate expectation, well-recognized in administrative law, is clearly attracted. The petitioners, by virtue of decades of continuous service and recurring official assurances or circulars, had a legitimate expectation of being considered for regularization. A denial thereof not only defeats fairness but shakes trust in State's conduct. Apart there from, denial of regularization to persons who are similarly situated as those already regularized is a blatant infringement of the equality clause under Article 14, and continued exploitation of services without security undermines Article 21, which guarantees dignity of life.

18.1. The State should, in fact, also constitute a Monitoring Committee to oversee compliance with this judgment. This exercise is not intended to create a precedent for future appointments through irregular means.

It is a one-time corrective measure arising from prolonged systemic inertia and continued service rendered by the petitioners. The repeated misuse of Uma Devi judgment to justify denial of justice to deserving employees reflects either a fundamental misunderstanding or a wilful subversion of judicial dicta. This Court cautions against such misuse in future and directs legal sensitization of departmental heads on the correct application of service law jurisprudence.

18.2. At the cost of repetition, it is clarified that the doctrine of legitimate expectation, read with the mandate of Articles 14 and 21, demands that employees who have rendered decades of loyal, uninterrupted service-not through backdoor entry but through sanctioned roles-must