Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1651

Atul S. Chandurkar, J
Madan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1996 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.2031 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.2033 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.2041 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2035-2037 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2099-2100 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.2044 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.2000 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.1997 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.1998 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.2008 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.1999 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2004-2006 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2001-2003 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.2007 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2010-2021 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.2009 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.2025 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2022-2023 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.2024 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.2026 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2027-2028 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2029-2030 OF 2024|CIVIL APPEAL NO.2040 OF 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Nidhesh Gupta, Japneet Kaur, Jhanvi Dubey, Ashok Mathur, Vriti Gujral, Bikram Dwivedi, Jimut Mohopatra

Regularisation is a one-time measure applicable only to irregular employees who possess requisite qualifications and worked against sanctioned posts. Executive power under Article 162 cannot override statutory recruitment rules to create perpetual regularisation policies that circumvent open competitive selection and constitutional equality in public employment.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 162, 309, 142 - Employment Law - Regularisation of contractual/ad hoc employees - Validity of policy decisions - Exercise of executive power vs. recruitment rules - One-time measure - Principles of equal opportunity - It is a well-settled principle that any appointment made in violation of the constitutional scheme and statutory rules cannot be regularised. Where rules have been framed under Article 309, no regularisation is permissible in exercise of executive powers under Article 162 in contravention of such rules. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 21)

(B) Regularisation - Scope of - Where appointments were made on sanctioned posts in accordance with qualifications but without open competitive selection, they are deemed ‘irregular’ but not ‘illegal’. The state is entitled to consider such cases as a one-time measure, provided it does not perpetuate illegal appointment practices. Notifications meant to align the status of employees with previous legitimate policy decisions are valid, whereas arbitrary extensions or future-looking cut-offs for irregular appointments are not. (Paras 18, 19, 21, 23)

Facts of the case:
The State issued various notifications seeking to regularise the services of contractual, ad hoc, and daily wage employees in different groups. These policies were challenged on grounds that they violated constitutional principles regarding equality in public employment and bypassed established regular recruitment procedures. The High Court quashed the notifications, declaring them arbitrary and contradictory to established legal precedent.

Findings of Court:
The court held that policies intended to grant the benefit of regularisation to employees who were left out of previous, valid policy exercises—provided they met all requisite criteria such as sanctioned posts and academic qualifications—are not arbitrary. However, notifications that extended regularisation to employees hired without any advertisement or interview, and which adopted a future cut-off date, were found to be arbitrary and illegal.

Issues: The central issues were: (i) whether the state could exercise executive power to regularise irregular employees in the face of existing recruitment rules; (ii) whether the regularisation policies constituted a valid ‘one-time measure’; (iii) whether the state’s notifications were arbitrary for bypassing competitive selection processes.

Ratio Decidendi: Regularisation is permissible only as a limited, one-time exercise to address specific administrative discrepancies where candidates possess the necessary qualifications and were initially placed against sanctioned posts. The court ruled that while the state may rectify past administrative exclusion, it cannot create perpetual, future-looking policies that circumvent constitutional requirements for open, transparent recruitment.

Result: Appeals partly allowed; High Court judgment modified; certain notifications upheld, others struck down with specific directions under Article 142 to maintain existing service status for affected employees with revised pay scales.

Table of Content
1. overview of state regularisation policy notifications for contractual employees. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 13 , 14 , 15)
2. high court ruling on the invalidity of regularisation notifications. (Para 7 , 8)
3. arguments concerning executive powers and umadevi compliance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. validation of notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. assessment of 07.07.2014 notifications as arbitrary yet protected via article 142. (Para 21 , 23)
6. modification of high court judgment and final order. (Para 25 , 27)

J U D G M E N T

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. Delay, if any, is condoned in Diary No.50483 of 2023.

2. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.

3. In this batch of appeals, we are called upon to determine the correctness of the common judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court¹1 For short, “the High Court” dated 31.05.2018 rendered in a batch of writ petitions. By the said judgment, the policy decisions of the General Administration Department of the State of Haryana dated 16.06.2014, 18.06.2014 and 07.07.2014 seeking to regularise the services of various contractual/ad hoc/daily wage employees falling in Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ have been found to be violative of the law laid down by this Court. Accordingly, the said Notifications have been quashed. In some appeals, the appellants are aggrieved by the denial of the relief of regularisation.

A. Factual Backdrop:

4. In the matter of recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors and various other categories of employees falling in Group ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’, the State of Haryana through its General Administration Department undertook the exercise of engagement of employees on contractual or ad hoc basis, as per the contingencies arising. In that regard, pursuant to the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others ²2 2006 INSC 216, Notification dated 29.07.2011 came to be issued seeking to regularise the services of employees, who had worked for not less than ten years as on 10.04.2006 and were continued in service without the aid of any interim order passed by any Tribunal or Court. In the said policy, it was stated that such regularisation was being undertaken as an ‘one time measure’. Thereafter, on 16.06.2014 another Notification came to be issued proposing to regularise the services of Group ‘B’ employees working on contractual basis, who were in service as on 28.05.2014 and had been working for not less than three years on that date. It was stated that this was being done as an ‘one time measure’ on humanitarian ground and that in future no such appointments would be made against sanctioned posts.

5. Subsequently, on 18.06.2014 another Notification with regards to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees with a similar dateline came to be issued so as to regularise their services.

6. Thereafter on 07.07.2014, another Notification seeking to regularise the services of Group ‘B’ employees who had or would complete ten years’ service on 31.12.2018 came to be issued, again by way of an ‘one time measure’ on humanitarian ground. On the same day, another Notification with regard to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees also came to be issued with a similar dateline.

B. Judgment of the High Court:

7. The aforesaid Notifications dated 16.06.2014, 18.06.2014 and 07.07.2014 were the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.17206 of 2014 by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024. Another batch of petitioners working on ad hoc basis sought the relief of regularisation in their writ petitions. The High Court considered all the writ petitions together and proceeded to hold that the impugned Notifications were bad in law inasmuch as they had the effect of violating the law laid down by this Court in its various decisions in the matter of regularisation of services of contractual/ad hoc/daily wage employees. It held that failure to resort to regular mode of recruitment af

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1651

Cases Referred (1)