Supreme Court: In a batch of appeals arising out of the judgment dated 31 May 2018 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerning regularisation of contractual, ad hoc and daily wage employees in Group “B”, “C” and “D” posts, a Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar*, JJ. partly allowed the appeals and modified the impugned judgment. The Court upheld the validity of the Notifications dated 16 June 2014 and 18 June 2014, holding that they were in continuation of an earlier valid policy and did not violate the principles laid down in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, while striking down the Notifications dated 7 July 2014 as arbitrary and illegal for seeking to regularise employees not appointed through any transparent process.
Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court, however, protected the continuance of employees covered under the invalidated notifications, directing that they be placed at the lowest pay scale of the posts held by them, and extended similar relief to other similarly situated employees, subject to verification.
Background
The present appeals arise from the judgment dated 31 May 2018 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby various notifications issued by the State of Haryana providing for regularisation of contractual, ad hoc and daily wage employees in Group “B”, “C” and “D” posts were quashed.
The dispute stems from a series of regularisation policies framed by the State in the aftermath of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi1, which restricted regularisation of irregular appointments and mandated adherence to constitutional recruitment norms. The first such policy was issued on July 2011, providing for regularisation of employees who had completed ten years of service as on 10 April 2006, described as a “one-time measure”.
Thereafter, on 16 June 2014, the State issued another notification for Group “B” contractual employees in service as on 28 May 2014 with at least three years of service, again termed a “one-time measure on humanitarian grounds”. Similar notifications for Group “C” and “D” employees were issued on 18 June 2014. Subsequently, on 7 July 2014, further notifications extended similar benefits to Group “B”, “C” and “D” employees based on revised cut-off dates, again styled as a “one-time measure”.
These notifications were challenged before the High Court, which held that they violated the principles laid down in Umadevi case, bypassed regular recruitment under Articles 14 and 16, and lacked any administrative justification. The Court also found that repeated “one-time measures” amounted to perpetuating illegality and appeared politically motivated. Accordingly, all impugned notifications were quashed, benefits already granted were directed to be withdrawn, and the State was ordered to conduct fresh recruitment while allowing temporary continuation and age relaxation to affected employees.
Aggrieved, the State of Haryana, beneficiaries of the policy, and contractual employees filed appeals before this Court, while other similarly placed employees and intervenors supported the State’s case. The original writ petitioners supported the High Court’s judgment.
Also Read: Regularisation in Service Jurisprudence: Before and After Umadevi
Analysis
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Notifications dated 16 June 2014 and 18 June 2014 and set aside the findings of the High Court. It noted that the Notification dated 16 June 2014 in respect of Group “B” employees was essentially a continuation of the earlier policy dated 7 March 1996, which had been withdrawn on 8 December 1997, and was intended to extend the benefit of regularisation to those ad hoc employees who had been left out earlier. A similar position applied to the Notification dated 18 June 2014 concerning Group “C” and “D” employees. The Court emphasised that the criteria prescribed under these notifications were not diluted, as they required possession of requisite qualifications at the time of initial engagement, appointment against sanctioned vacant posts, continuation of such posts till regularisation, and compliance with reservation policy, along with placement in seniority below regularly appointed employees.
On this basis, the Court held that the notifications did not violate the principles laid down in Umadevi case, as they did not regularise backdoor entrants but applied to employees whose initial engagement was against sanctioned posts and in accordance with prescribed qualifications. The object of the notifications was to extend the benefit of an earlier valid policy to similarly situated employees who had been excluded, and there was no material to show that ineligible persons were being regularised. The Court further held that the “one-time measure” principle, as clarified in M.L. Kesari case, would include such left-out employees and therefore the exercise could not be termed as impermissible or repetitive. Accordingly, it was held that the notifications were neither arbitrary nor illegal, and the High Court erred in quashing them.
Further, while examining the validity of the Notifications dated 7 July 2014, the Court distinguished them from the earlier Notifications dated 16 June 2014 and 18 June 2014 and held them to be arbitrary and illegal. The Court noted that unlike the earlier policies, the 7 July 2014 notifications sought to regularise ad hoc employees who had either completed or were to complete ten years of service by a future cut-off date of 31 December 2018, even if their initial engagement was not made through any process of advertisement or interview. Although the notifications prescribed conditions such as possession of requisite qualifications, engagement against sanctioned posts, and adherence to reservation policy, the Court found that the absence of any requirement of public advertisement or interview cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of such appointments. The Court emphasised that lack of transparency in the initial engagement process and absence of any recorded procedure undermined the constitutional mandate of fair and open recruitment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Court further held that no rational justification had been provided by the State for fixing a future cut-off date extending several years beyond the date of the notifications, which effectively blocked regular recruitment to sanctioned posts and facilitated the absorption of irregular appointees. This, in the Court’s view, was contrary to the principles laid down in Umadevi case, as it amounted to regularisation of backdoor entries. Accordingly, the Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the Notifications dated 7 July 2014 were arbitrary and illegal and did not warrant interference.
However, taking note of the peculiar facts, including the long continuance of such employees in service under interim orders and the fact that they had gained experience over time, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. It directed that such employees should not be disturbed and be allowed to continue in service, but clarified that they would be placed at the lowest pay scale applicable to their posts, in line with the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh.
Decision
The Court thus partly modified the High Court’s judgment by upholding the validity of the Notifications dated 16 June 2014 and 18 June 2014 and setting aside the High Court’s findings to that extent, while affirming the invalidity of the Notifications dated 7 July 2014. It further extended the benefit of its directions to similarly situated intervenors, subject to verification, and left open certain broader issues for consideration in an appropriate case.
Also Read: SC strikes down Section 3(b) of J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 | SCC Times
[Madan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 628, decided on 16-4-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Buy Constitution of India HERE
1. 2006 INSC 216
