The court held that longstanding irregularities in public service appointments may be remedied through regularization, affirming employees' legitimate expectations and emphasizing the principle of fairness in employment.

JUDGMENT :

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

Petitioner, who was appointed on ad hoc basis vide order dated 13.11.1991 at Annexure-1, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court essentially to have a direction for regularization of his services, which request has been turned down by the jurisdictional OPs.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently argues that a Model State like ours under the Constitution cannot keep the employees of the kind with a ‘Damocles Sword’ hanging on the head without regularization of their services for decades; he also tells the Court that the four conditions mentioned in the appointment order would not operate at all, inasmuch as three of them depend on the happening of the recruitment process stipulated in condition no.1 and therefore, all these conditions should be deemed to have been complied with or waived. He further submits that whatever arguable irregularity at the entry level existed, would diminish by the run of time and at this length of time, it completely evaporates. In support of his case, he cites a Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A. No.857 of 2024 & batch between Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Bijay Kumar Samal & Ors. decided on 30.07.2025.

3. The OPs have not filed any counter or objections to the petition and therefore, ordinarily the petition averments need to be taken with their face value, subject to exceptions, into which argued case of the Petitioner does not fit. Learned ASC appearing for the answering OPs resists the petition contending that the very entry of Petitioner was not legally permissible; the four conditions mentioned in the appointment order dated 13.11.1991 have not been complied with, though twice recruitment was undertaken; howsoever long a service may continue, the pollution at the entry level is not wiped out; even otherwise in the light of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 , petitioner cannot be granted any relief. Having so contended, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

4.1. The Petitioner gained entry to the public service vide order dated 13.11.1991 and that, he has been continuing without any interruption. Further that there is no complaint whatsoever against him in the matter of employment, is apparent from the record. The law relating to regularization of services commencing from the famous Daily Wager’s cases, namely, The Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 883 to Uma Devi supra and therefore to State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari , AIR 2010 SC 2587 , is well settled. If the entry is illegal, no relief can be granted to the employee, is true. However, this is not a case of illegal entry at all. Secondly, whatever irregularity the entry was arguably suffering from, would wither away by the long lapse of time. An argument to the contrary would amount, to put it metaphorically, digging the grave with no purpose.

4.2. In more or less similar fact matrix, a Division Bench of this Court, having surveyed the law relating to regularization, has granted relief to employees of the kind in Bijay Kumar Samal & Ors. supra and therefore, Petitioner cannot be denied the similar relief. In the said decision, paragraphs 6.2 & 6.3 read as under:

“6.2. The vehement submission of learned panel counsel appearing for the Board that the very initial entry of the respondents to the service is illegal and therefore no regularization/absorption would have been granted in terms of Umadevi supra cannot be acceded to and easons for this are many: Firstly, Section 9(1) of the Act says “The