SC Clear Message on Regularisation of Temporary Appointments

the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. (Civil Appeals No. 3595–3612 of 1999) firmly asserted the constitutional boundaries of public employment.

Delivered on 10 April 2006 by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan, the verdict drew a hard line against the regularisation of temporary, ad hoc, or daily wage employees outside the prescribed recruitment rules.

This judgment served as a resolute reaffirmation of the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: equality and equal opportunity in public employment.

What's The Matter?

The case arose from conflicting judgments of the Karnataka High Court. One bench held that workers who had been in continuous temporary service for over a decade were entitled to regularisation. Another ruled the opposite, prompting the Supreme Court to step in and resolve the matter once and for all.

The issue at stake was clear: whether temporary, casual, or daily wage employees who had served for several years often bypassing open selection processes could be regularised by court orders, and whether equity and length of service could override the constitutional mandate for fair recruitment.

What Court Said?

The judgment categorically stated that public employment must strictly conform to the constitutional scheme. Recruitment through competitive processes often involving the Public Service Commission or other designated mechanisms is the only valid route.

Temporary or backdoor appointments, the Court emphasized, defeat the ideals of transparency and fairness and deprive more qualified citizens of their right to compete.

What was perhaps most striking was the Court’s strong words against what it termed “litigious employment”—appointments that find permanence not through merit or lawful process but through judicial orders obtained after years of litigation.

The Court warned High Courts against using Article 226 to grant regularisation, stressing that such directions undermine the very fabric of equal opportunity. Compassion or length of service, it reasoned, cannot justify ignoring the law.

Equity, the Court said, must be balanced not skewed in favour of a few at the cost of the many. It questioned whether sympathy for a few should override the legitimate expectations of millions waiting to compete fairly for public posts.

The judgment cautioned against using Article 142 or Article 226 of the Constitution to perpetuate irregularities or reward those who had benefitted from illegal appointments.

Instead, the Court reiterated the distinction between “regularisation” and “permanence” stating unequivocally that irregular or illegal appointments cannot be legitimised by mere passage of time.

Crucially, the Court acknowledged that temporary appointments may be necessary in exceptional circumstances

for example, project-based work or stop-gap arrangements but held that such engagements must remain temporary in nature and cannot be a backdoor to regular service.

Even economic hardship or administrative necessity, the Court noted, cannot be an excuse to bypass constitutional discipline.

In distancing itself from earlier decisions such as Dharwad and Piara Singh, the Court clarified that those judgments, while influenced by equitable concerns, did not constitute binding precedent on regularisation without proper process.

It also rejected the doctrine of legitimate expectation as a ground for regularisation, observing that those appointed without adherence to rules cannot claim a vested right merely because they served long enough.

The Umadevi judgment has since become the cornerstone of public employment jurisprudence in India.

It has significantly reduced judicial interference in service matters involving irregular appointments and has compelled state and local bodies to formalise recruitment processes.

While it does leave space for the government to frame one-time schemes for regularisation under very limited and exceptional circumstances, the guiding principle remains that appointments must follow the rule of law, not the rule of tenure.

Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.