Long-serving employees in sanctioned positions may claim regularization and cannot be arbitrarily denied their rights based on procedural shortcomings, reflecting the principles of fairness and employment stability.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ Petition for regularization of services - Petitioner served as staff nurse for over 20 years on ad-hoc basis, claims for regularization denied citing arbitrary reasoning. Court finds denial of regularization as discriminatory and directed respondents to reconsider within 4 months based on Apex Court principles. (Paras 11, 12, 20, 21)

(B) Right to Employment - Regularization - The court emphasized that long-serving workers in sanctioned posts deserve fair treatment and cannot be treated as expendable, reinforcing the principles established in prior Supreme Court judgments. (Paras 19, 24)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner Smt. Sunanda M. was engaged in continuous service as staff nurse for over 20 years but faced arbitrary denial of regularization from the Institute. The initial direction regarding regularization was ignored, leading her to file a writ petition.

Findings of Court:
Respondents must reconsider the regularization of the petitioner’s services bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding employment and regularization, ensuring compliance within 4 months.

Issues: The primary issues revolved around arbitrary denial of regularization and the interpretative application of Supreme Court principles regarding employee rights and regularization after extended service.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the state could not deprive long-term employees of employment stability based on rules that were not correctly applied and highlighted that individual rights to regularization must be safeguarded in light of continuous service.

Result: Petition allowed; endorsement quashed.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the impugned endorsement in No.kims:aspatre:cv(2): 05/2019-20 dated 23.07.2019 issued by the 2^nd respondent herein produced at Annexure-H as the same being totally arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable in law in the interest of justice and equity.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or a direction in the like nature directing the respondents herein to regularize/absorb the services of the petitioner herein in the post of staff nurses/nursing officers in the 2^nd respondent institute from the date of her initial appointment with all consequential service as well as monetary benefits as admissible to her under the law as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SSC OnLine SC 221 in the interest of justice and equity and etc.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Ramachandra A. Mali appearing for the petitioner, learned HCGP Sri P.N.Hatti appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri.Aravind D. Kulkarni appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The petitioner was engaged as Staff Nurses on ad- hoc basis in the 2nd respondent- Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (‘the KIMS’, for short). After rendering continuous service, the petitioner and others approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.108405-108430 of 2018. This Court disposes the writ petitions, directing the respondents to consider the representations given by the Association in terms of the judgment of Apex Court then in the case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Kamal Prasad and others reported in (2014) 7 SCC 223 . The endorsement is issued to all the persons who are members of the Association that regularization could not be done, as a matter of course. Therefore, the petitioner has individually presented the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel Sri.Ramchandra Mali appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in continuous employment for more than 20 years and is entitled to be considered for regularization. The earlier writ petition comes to be disposed, directing consideration and endorsement to that effect is issued, which is erroneous. The learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner should merit re- consideration at the hands of the respondents owing to the law prevailing today.

5. The learned counsel further submits that all the proceedings and formalities of a regular recruitment were followed at the time when the petitioner was appointed on ad- hoc basis or contract basis as Staff Nurse as the case would be. The submission is also placed on record.

6. Since the case of the petitioner has not met appropriate consideration at the hands of the respondents, despite the objection of the respondents, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to re-consider the case of these petitioners bearing in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SSC OnLine SC 221, and all other judgments, all of which are considered by this Court in Writ Petition No.100556/2024 disposed on 20.02.2025. It reads as follows:

“11. The petitioners fulfill quad conditions that were enunciated, in the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of UMADEVI (3) supra. The Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (3) has held as follows:

“ …. …. ….

51. The argument that the right to life protected by Article 21 of the Constitution would include the right to employment cannot also be accepted at this juncture. The law is dynamic and our Constitution is a living document. May be at some future point of time, the right to employment can also be brought in under the concept of right to life or even included as a fundamental right. The new statute is perhaps a beginning. As things now stand, the acceptance of such a plea at the instance of the employees before

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19849

Long-serving employees in sanctioned positions may claim regularization and cannot be arbitrarily denied their rights based on procedural shortcomings, reflecting the principles of fairness and employment stability.

Cases Referred (7)