State Can't Exploit Labour Through Indefinite Ad-hoc Employment: Karnataka HC Orders Reconsideration of Nurse's Regularization

Bengaluru, India – The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling on service law, has quashed an endorsement denying regularization to a staff nurse who has served for over two decades. The court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur , held that long-term ad-hoc employment without regularization amounts to "exploitation of human labour" and directed the state authorities to reconsider the petitioner's case in light of established Supreme Court precedents.

---

Case Overview

The petitioner, Smt. Sunanda M., a Staff Nurse at the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Hubli, challenged a 2019 endorsement that rejected her plea for regularization. Appointed on an ad-hoc basis and having rendered continuous service for over 20 years, she argued for absorption into a permanent post with all consequential benefits.

The case, titled Smt Sunanda M. D/o. Mariyappa vs The State of Karnataka (WP 102486 / 2025) , hinged on whether an employee who has served for an extensive period in a sanctioned post, despite being initially appointed on a temporary basis, is entitled to regularization.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner (Smt. Sunanda M.): Sri. Ramachandra A. Mali, counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client had been in continuous employment for over 20 years and was therefore entitled to be considered for regularization. He contended that the initial appointment followed all due formalities of a regular recruitment process and that the state's refusal was arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner relied heavily on the recent Supreme Court decision in Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam (2025) , among others, to support the claim.

For the Respondents (State of Karnataka & KIMS): The respondents argued against the regularization, contending it could not be granted as a matter of course. They relied on the landmark judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) , often cited to prevent the regularization of irregularly appointed employees.

Court's Rationale and Legal Precedents

Justice Yerur, in a detailed order, undertook a comprehensive review of the jurisprudence on regularization, particularly the evolution of law since the Umadevi (3) judgment. The court observed that the principles laid down in Umadevi (3) were often misapplied by the state to deny legitimate claims.

The court noted that the Umadevi judgment itself carved out a one-time exception for irregular appointees (not illegal) who had worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts without the cover of court orders.

The judgment extensively cited several post- Umadevi Supreme Court rulings to underscore the evolving judicial stance against exploitative labour practices:

Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of U.P. (2018): The court lamented that Umadevi was being "used only as a tool for not regularising the services of incumbents" and that new devices like contract-basis appointments were exploitative.

Jaggo v. Union of India (2024): The Supreme Court criticized the "pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts" and held that courts must look beyond labels to the substantive reality of long, integral service.

Shripal v. Nagar Nigam (2025): The Apex Court reiterated that Umadevi "cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years" and directed regularization for long-serving municipal workers.

Justice Yerur highlighted the consistent theme in these judgments:

"One unmistakable stream that runs through judicial thinking of judgments of the Apex Court is that, regularization of the services of the employees engaged to work for the State for long years should be considered, failing which, it would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

The court strongly deprecated the state's actions, stating:

"...the State practising exploitation of human labour, should by judicial orders be curbed... If their services are not directed to be regularised today, it would be putting a premium on the act of the State, exploiting human labour..."

Furthermore, the court took issue with the state’s "pick and choose procedure" in regularization, citing State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyam Kumar Yadav (2024) , where the Supreme Court condemned such arbitrary practices as a violation of Articles 14 and 16.

Final Decision and Implications

Finding merit in the petitioner's plea, the Karnataka High Court passed the following order:

1. The petition was allowed .

2. The impugned endorsement dated 23.07.2019, which denied regularization, was quashed .

3. The respondents were directed to re-consider the petitioner's case for regularization within four months, keeping in mind the court's observations and the cited Supreme Court judgments.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder to government bodies that while the Umadevi case bars illegal "backdoor" entries, it does not permit the state to indefinitely exploit workers in roles that are perennial in nature. It reinforces the principle that long, unblemished service in a sanctioned post creates a legitimate expectation for regularization, which cannot be arbitrarily denied.