The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has directed the state government to formalize the employment status of three veterinary officers, ruling that long-standing temporary service entitles employees to regularization despite past attempts by the administration to disrupt their tenure. The Division Bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma, dismissed a special appeal filed by the Department of Animal Husbandry, affirming a 2025 decision from the Single Bench that required the state to recognize the petitioners’ decade of service as a basis for permanent employment.

The litigation involves Dr. Ramakant Soni, Dr. Surendra Kumar, and Dr. Shahdab Ahmed Khan, who were originally recruited as veterinary officers in 2013 following a formal selection process conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for 500 sanctioned posts. Although they were initially appointed to serve under the regulations governing the Department of Animal Husbandry, their employment was abruptly terminated after three years. The affected officers successfully challenged these termination orders in the High Court, leading to their reinstatement. By the time they filed their petition for regularization in 2020, they had functioned as veterinary officers for over ten years, supported by consecutive interim judicial orders.

The state government had vehemently opposed the regularization claim, arguing that the officers were engaged on an “urgent temporary basis” under Rule 26 of the 1963 Rules and were not appointed through a permanent selection process. Government counsel further contended that the petitioners’ service had been interrupted by their earlier termination and that their continued employment was solely a consequence of court-mandated interim relief. Relying on the landmark Supreme Court decision in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi , the state argued that individuals working under the cover of court orders were ineligible for the one-time regularization measure envisioned by the Apex Court.

However, the Division Bench rejected this defense, characterizing the state's actions as a tactical misuse of employment labeling. The Court observed that the department consistently sought to avoid its obligations to long-serving staff by characterizing their roles as temporary, despite the perennial nature of the work performed. In their ruling, the judges highlighted that the state’s strategy of periodic termination followed by litigation was a deliberate mechanism to prevent employees from reaching the eligibility threshold for permanent status.

The Court drew heavily on recent judicial precedents, specifically the Supreme Court’s observations in Jaggo vs. Union of India , which cautioned against the misapplication of the Uma Devi ruling. The Bench emphasized that the judiciary must focus on the substance of the employment rather than the nomenclature used by the state. As the Court noted, "The decision in Uma Devi(supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities."

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the petitioners were not "backdoor entrants" but were recruited through a proper selection process. Their continued performance of duties identical to those of permanent staff, without any complaints regarding their competence or professionalism, provided sufficient grounds for their regularization. The Court underscored that procedural formalities, such as the initial "temporary" label assigned by the department, should not be used to permanently disenfranchise workers who have consistently fulfilled essential government functions.

Addressing the broader societal implications of such employment practices, the Bench observed, "It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation." The Court pointed out that the misuse of temporary contracts to avoid pension and benefit liabilities has become an increasingly common, yet constitutionally problematic, practice within government departments. The judgment explicitly linked the denial of regularization to a systemic deprivation of dignity and job security for public servants who are otherwise integral to state-run veterinary healthcare.

The judgment affirms that where the underlying function is permanent and the individuals have served continuously for over a decade, the courts have a duty to intervene to ensure fair treatment. By confirming the Single Bench order, the Division Bench has mandated that the state calculate the ten-year tenure from the date of the petitioners' initial joining, granting them all consequential benefits that accompany permanent service status.

This ruling provides significant relief to the three veterinary officers and sets a firm precedent for similar cases in Rajasthan, limiting the ability of government departments to hide behind technicalities or temporary contract labels. The state is now required to process the regularization of the respondents, effectively ending years of uncertainty regarding their employment tenure. The appeal, having been found devoid of merit, was dismissed in its entirety, with the Court confirming that no further obstacles should be placed in the way of the petitioners’ right to regularized service. The Department of Animal Husbandry is expected to comply with the directive, ensuring that the veterinary officers receive the security and benefits entitled to them as permanent government employees, bringing a conclusion to their long-standing legal battle.