Back
Supreme Court Draws Line on : Validates Some, Shields Others in Haryana Saga
In a nuanced verdict blending strict adherence to recruitment rules with compassionate equity, the on , partially modified a ruling from . A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar (who authored the judgment) cleared two Haryana government notifications from for regularising services of qualified ad-hoc Group B, C, and D employees. However, it struck down two others from , deeming them arbitrary for seeking to regularise hires made without public advertisements or interviews—yet protected those already continuing in service at the lowest pay scale under .
The batch of civil appeals, led by , arose from challenges to Haryana's repeated attempts to regularise contractual, ad-hoc, and daily wage workers amid acute staffing shortages.
Roots in Umadevi: Haryana's Quest to Fill the Gaps
The dispute traces back to Haryana's hiring spree for Group B, C, and D posts like Assistant Professors and clerical roles, often on contract amid contingencies. Post the landmark ruling, which barred blanket regularisation of irregular hires to uphold equality, Haryana issued a 2011 notification as a "" for those with 10+ years' service as on .
Subsequent notifications followed: (Group B, 3+ years as on , reviving a 1996 policy); (Group C/D, similar criteria); and (both groups, targeting 10 years by , even without initial ads/interviews). The High Court quashed all as violating Umadevi , suspecting political motives ahead of 2014 elections, while allowing six months' continuation and age relaxation for fresh recruitment.
Appellants included the State, beneficiaries of the policies, and others seeking regularisation. Original petitioners (regular recruitment aspirants) defended the High Court order.
State and Workers Push Back: 'Humanitarian, Not Backdoor'
Haryana and affected employees argued the policies exercised valid executive power under , addressing shortages without needing prior rules. They claimed hires were ""—qualified, on sanctioned posts via selection committees, respecting reservations. Regularisation was a "" per Umadevi 's para 53 exception for 10-year veterans, clarified in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari () as extendable beyond six months for overlooked cases. Denying relief would cause hardship and chaos, they urged.
Opponents countered: Policies perpetuated irregular hiring post- Umadevi , breaching recruitment rules and equality. No administrative emergency justified bypassing open competition; futuristic cut-offs () blocked regular ads. Amicus curiae reinforced: Regularisation can't substitute recruitment where rules exist under ; equal opportunity is constitutional bedrock.
Parsing Precedents: Irregular vs. Illegal, One-Time Limits
The Court meticulously dissected Umadevi , affirming its bar on regularising purely contractual hires but carving exceptions for long-serving irregular appointees on sanctioned posts with qualifications ( M.L. Kesari elaborated "one-time" as exhaustive, not perpetual). June notifications revived a withdrawn 1996 policy fairly, mandating initial sanctioned-post engagement, qualifications at hire, and ongoing vacancies—aligning with Umadevi 's spirit without diluting merit.
July notifications, however, crossed the line: They explicitly covered non-advertised, non-interviewed hires with a forward cut-off to
, lacking justification and inspiring
"doubts as regards the manner of engagement."
Echoing the bench's observation integrated from reports:
"The claim of being engaged
itself gives rise to doubts... Absence of any record whatsoever... does not inspire any confidence."
No interference needed on , as High Court hadn't struck on that ground.
Punchy Pronouncements from the Bench
-
"The exercise undertaken... cannot be questioned on the ground of arbitrariness, illegality or as being the outcome of a ."
(On notifications) -
"Absence of any record whatsoever of the manner of engagement does not inspire any confidence in such process."
(On July 2014 flaws) -
"In exercise of jurisdiction under ... permit such... ad hoc employees who are continuing in service... at the lowest pay scale."
(Equity for incumbents)
Balanced Verdict: Relief with Restraint
The Court set aside the High Court quashing of June 16/18 notifications, entitling eligible employees (and intervenors post-verification) to regularisation benefits. July 7 ones stand struck down as arbitrary, but continuing Group B/C/D workers—and like-placed intervenors—retain jobs at the -mandated lowest scale, averting hardship after 12 years.
Employees denied regularisation by High Court can re-approach. This ruling reinforces merit-based recruitment as sacrosanct, yet tempers justice with humanity, signaling states to prioritize open processes over periodic amnesties. Future policies must hew strictly to Umadevi 's guardrails, or risk the axe.
