Public employers must regularize long-term workers and ensure their employment rights, reflecting the stability of their roles under constitutional provisions.

1. When public institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity. The controversy before us is not about rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether years of ad hoc engagement, defended by shifting excuses and pleas of financial strain, can be used to deny the rights of those who have kept public institutions running. We resolve it by insisting that public employment should be organised with fairness, reasoned decision making, and respect for the dignity of work.

2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 08/02/2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 1245 of 2009, whereby the Special Appeal preferred by the present appellants against the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2000 was rejected.

3. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the dismissal of the writ petition on the premise that the appellants were engaged on daily - wage basis and that there were no rules in the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (In short, "the Commission") (Respondent No.2 herein) for regularization. Moreover, the Court observed that no vacancies existed against which the appellants could be considered.

4. The factual backdrop to the present appeal is as follows:
4.1. The appellants were engaged by the Commission between 1989 and 1992. Appellant Nos. 1 to 5 served as Class - IV employees (Peon / attendant duties), and Appellant No. 6 served as Driver (Class - III). They were paid as dally wagers and, with effect from 08/04/1997, received consolidated monthly amounts (Rs.1,500 for Class - IV; Rs.2,000 for Driver), while discharging ministerial and support functions during regular office hours. The Commission, established under the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, processes large recruitment cycles for teachers and principals and requires ministerial support for scrutiny of applications, dispatch, and connected administrative work.
4.2. On 24/10/1991, the Commission resolved to create fourteen posts in Class - III and Class - IV and sought sanction from the State Government (In short, "the State"). On 27.12.1997, the State sought particulars of daily - wage hands and their service details. On 11/02/1998, the Commission furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers which included the present appellants.
4.3. On 16/10/1999, the Commission reiterated its request, seeking sanction of two posts of Driver and ten posts for Peon / Mali / Chowkidar, adverted to administrative exigencies, and referred to earlier correspondence. By letter dated 11/11/1999, the State rejected the proposal citing financial constraints.
4.4. Aggrieved, the appellants instituted Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2000 before the High Court praying for
(i) Quashing of the State's order dated 11/11/1999;
(ii) A mandamus to the State to sanction / create fourteen posts in Class - III / IV for the Commission in terms of the Commission's resolution and proposals and, thereafter, to regularise the appellants against those posts with regular pay; and
(iii) Consequential non - interference and salary directions.
4.5. On 24/04/2002, the High Court directed the Commission to send a fresh recommendation for sanction of appropriate Group - C / Group - D posts and directed the State to take a fresh decision thereon. In the meantime, having regard to the appellants' long engagement, the Commission was directed to pay them the minimum of the applicable pay scale.
4.6. Pursuant thereto, a fresh recommendation was sent and by communication dated 25/11/2003, the State declined sanction, again