The Supreme Court has made it clear that public employment cannot be converted into a permanent entitlement when the initial entry itself bypassed transparency. In a significant ruling, the Court held that government workers engaged on an ad hoc or contractual basis—without any public advertisement or interview—cannot be regularised under a State policy.
The judgment came while examining Haryana government notifications issued in 2014 that sought to absorb employees who had completed, or were nearing, ten years of service. The Court found that the State failed to justify why individuals recruited through opaque processes should be granted permanent status.
The Bench observed that appointments made without any advertisement naturally raise questions about fairness and legitimacy. The absence of records detailing how such employees were engaged, it said, undermines confidence in the recruitment process and runs contrary to principles governing public employment.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged the human dimension of the dispute. Many of the affected workers had continued in service for years and had built their lives around these positions. Taking note of the passage of time and the experience gained by these employees, the Court exercised its extraordinary powers to allow them to remain in service. However, it directed that they be placed at the lowest pay scale applicable to their respective posts. ⚖️
The ruling partly modified an earlier decision that had struck down Haryana’s regularisation policies. While two notifications issued in July 2014 were invalidated, the Court upheld two similar notifications from June 2014. These earlier policies, the Court noted, extended the benefit of an older regularisation scheme and adhered more closely to the criteria ordinarily required for recruitment.
A key factor that weighed in favour of the June 2014 notifications was that the employees concerned had been working against sanctioned posts. Their engagement continued over several years, indicating that vacancies legitimately existed—an important distinction from irregular appointments made without any structured process.
The Court emphasized that regularisation cannot become a shortcut to bypass proper recruitment norms. Public employment, it reiterated, must remain anchored in transparency, equal opportunity, and adherence to sanctioned procedures. 🚫📄
After delivering the verdict, the Bench also indicated that the issue may need reconsideration by a larger Bench in the future, noting that conflicting decisions from smaller benches could create uncertainty. This signals that the broader legal framework governing regularisation of ad hoc employees may soon come under deeper judicial scrutiny.
