The Court upheld that temporary contract employees cannot claim regularisation against filled vacancies based on past judgments.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 20^th day of November, 2025 The petitioners, who are working as Agricultural Officers on contract basis under the 2^nd respondent - Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, have filed this writ petition seeking to direct the 2^nd respondent to regularise the service of the petitioners as permanent Agricultural Officers.

2. The petitioners submit that they have rendered long years of service as Agricultural Officers on contract basis. Certain similarly situated employees approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.4463 of 2020 praying for a direction to the respondents to consider their representation. This Court, as per judgment dated

17.02.2020 directed the 2^nd respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioners.

3. However, the request of the petitioners stands rejected as per Ext.P7. The petitioners state that the service of many of the petitioners was terminated without notice. The petitioners submit that one T.P. Shekkeel Ahammed, who is similarly situated like the petitioners, was regularised in service by issuing specific orders. The petitioners are discriminated.

4. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the petitioners joined service on contract basis knowing fully well that their appointment is for a limited period and based on the terms of the agreement. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , the petitioners cannot claim regularisation. Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 and 3 submitted that there are 73 vacancies of Agricultural Officers and all the said vacancies now stand filled up by appointing duly recruited PSC hands. There is no vacancy to accommodate any more contractual Agricultural Officers. For that reason also, no relief is liable to be granted in this writ petition. Standing Counsel further submitted that a similarly situated person had earlier approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.1 of 2021 and connected cases. This Court did not grant the relief of regularisation to them.

5. Counsel entered appearance on behalf of additional respondents 4 to 8. Counsel for respondents 4 to 8 submitted that they are duly selected through a competitive test conducted by the PSC and were placed in the rank list. On the basis of the advice given by the Public Service Commission, they are now appointed. The petitioners in the writ petition are trying to make a backdoor entry to Government service, which cannot be permitted. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief, urged the Counsel for additional respondents 4 to8.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1^st respondent, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Counsel appearing for additional respondents 4 to 8.

7. The contention of the petitioners is that they were selected for appointment as Agricultural Officers on contract basis, after undergoing a selection process. They have been retained in service for long years of duration. Therefore, they are entitled to regularisation. The petitioners would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalise employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. In view of the said judgment also, the petitioners case for regularisation is liable to be considered.

8. However, it is to b