Jharkhand High Court
Kumar Kunal vs 2025:Jhhc:34926 on 24 November, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:34926
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2984 of 2019
---------
1. Kumar Kunal, aged 34 years, son of S.N. Pandey, resident of C/o Ajay Arora, Indrapuri, Road No. 6, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
2. Sushma Devi, aged 42 years, wife of Binod Singh, resident of Radha Nagar, Pandra, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. Seema Rani, aged 40 years, daughter of Late R.P. Sinha, resident of Sushila Niwas, South Office Para, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. Sudeep Sanyal, aged 43 years, son of M.M. Sanyal, resident of Qr.No.B-1993/2, Site-4, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. (Jharkhand). Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi
5. Shyam Sundar Jha, son of Chandrakant Jha, aged 40 years, resident of 204-B,. Sankalp Residency, Chuna Bhatta, Kokar, P.O. Η.Ρ.Ο., P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
6. Rakesh Ranjan, aged 38 years, son of Krishna Prasad, resident of C/o Rahul Kumar, Young Hira Nagpur Club, Karamtoli, Morabadi Road, P.O. Lalpur, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
7. Babita Devi, aged 38 years, daughter of Rakesh Ranjan, resident of C/o Rahul Kumar, Young Hira Nagpur Club, Karamtoli, Morabadi Road, P.O. Lalpur, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
8. Pawan Kumar, aged 34 years, son of Surendra Kumar, resident of AlwaNiwas, Jagdeo Nagar, New BandhGari, DipaToli, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
9. Reena Devi, aged 49 years, wife of Jay Prakash Ram, resident of Adarsh Nagar, Patel Colony, Kokar, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
10. AmitKumar Singh, aged 29 years, son of Krishna Singh, resident of Village Dhankoul, Ρ.Ο. Makhdumpur, P.S. Makhdumpur, District Patna (Bihar).
11. Ravi Shankar Ray, aged 49 years, son of Kailash Ray, resident of Village Sahejani, P.O. Piro, P.S. Hasan Bazar, District Bhojpur (Bihar).
12. Ravindar Kumar Sah, aged 43 years, son of Ramnandan Sah, resident of Village Nayak Tola, Edalhatu Road, Morabadi P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
13. Md. Sheikh Afsar Ali, aged 42 years, son of Md. Neshar Ali, resident of Arbindo Nagar, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). ....Petitioners Versus 1 2025:JHHC:34926
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Project Building Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Chairman, Jharkhand State AIDS Control Society, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Sadar Hospital Campus, Purulia Road, P.O. GPO, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. The Project Director, Jharkhand State AIDS Control Society, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Sadar Hospital Campus, Purulia Road, P.O., G.P.O., P.S. Sadar, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand. ....Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Adv
For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to S.C.-IV
---------
C.A.V. ON: 16.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON:24/11/2025
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners for the following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the reasoned order, contained in different Letters all dated 15.3.2019 (Annexure-9 series), passed by the Project Director, Jharkhand State AIDS Control Society, Ranchi-Respondent no.4, whereby and whereunder, the appointment of all fifteen employees, including all the petitioners, have been declared illegal and the contract of petitioner no.1 to 11 will be terminated after issuance of 30 days' notice in advance, and the petitioner no.12 and 13 will not be reinstated;2
2025:JHHC:34926
(ii) Upon quashing of the reasoned order dated 15.3.2019, a further writ, order or direction, including writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the Letter No.1066 dated 18.3.2019 (Annexure-10) issued under the signature of the Project Director, Jharkhand State AIDS Control Society, Ranchi- Respondent no.4, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner no.1 to 11 have been informed that their services will be terminated automatically after 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice;
(iii) Upon quashing aforesaid letters, further for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits and further to consider the case of the petitioners for their regularization in true letter and spirit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2018)8 SCC 238; and
(iv) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioners are legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the Jharkhand State AIDS Control Society (JSACS) is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is formed by National AIDS Control Society (NACO) which comes under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. The function of AIDS Control Society is for prevention of HIV AIDS in the State and treatment of people infected by HIV AIDS. Jharkhand AIDS Control Society is headed by Chairman and the Project Director who are Member of Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand. It is funded by World Bank and the Government of India and is governed by 3 2025:JHHC:34926 Memorandum of Association and Rules & Regulations with certain aims and objectives. The Memorandum of Association of JSACS under Clause K(i) confers powers upon the Project Director to fill up posts within the budget, on a consolidated salary as sanctioned/fixed by the State or Central Government.
All the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis in JSACS on different dates. These appointments were made pursuant to the vacancy and the letter given by National AIDS Control Society.
Petitioner no.1 was appointed to the post of Divisional Assistant on 22.01.2008 and thereafter promoted to post of Accountant on 21.11.2008.
Petitioner no.2 was appointed to the post of Office Assistant on 17.07.2007 and thereafter transferred to the post of Divisional Assistant on 23.01.2008.
Petitioner no.3 was appointed to the post of Accountant (Finance) on 02.01.2008.
Petitioner no.4 was appointed to the post of Assistant Statistical cum Computer Operator on 13.07.2007 and thereafter promoted to Statistical Officer on 23.01.2008.
Petitioner no.5 was appointed to the post of Computer Literature Steno on 18.07.2007 and thereafter promoted to the post of Accountant/Finance Assistant on 23.01.2008. Petitioner no.6 was appointed to the post of Peon on 01.02.2008. Petitioner no.7 was appointed to the post of Peon on 01.05.2009. Petitioner no.8 was appointed to the post of Peon on 05.01.2008. Petitioner no.9 was appointed to the post of Night Guard on 20.09.2008.
Petitioner no.10 was appointed to the post of Peon on 30.09.2003. Petitioner no.11 was appointed to the post of Night Guard on 20.04.2008.
Petitioner no.12 was appointed to the post of Driver on5.11.2006. Petitioner no.13 was appointed to the post of peon/messenger on 2004.
4. On 07.10.2016, the petitioners were issued with a show cause notice under the signature of Project Director, Jharkhand State AIDS Control Society, whereby and whereunder the conditions of the petitioner's agreement/ contract have been 4 2025:JHHC:34926 suspended and the remuneration payable to the petitioners has been stalled and further the petitioners have been asked as to why the agreement/contract may not be treated as illegal.
The petitioners were suspended on 07.10.2016 and the charge were taken from the same date. The petitioners replied to the above show cause on 28.10.2016 denying all the allegations. The three-member Committee was constituted and it was opined by the Committee on 31.03.2017 that all the 22 personnel (including the petitioners) were duly appointed by the Project Director and their charge were also handed over through the direction of Project Director, but they are not in a position to state as to whether all the suspended personnel should be taken back or not. The Contract period ended for all 22 employees (including the petitioners) on 31.03.2017.
5. The facts further reveal that the Hon'ble Minister has given a noting in the file on 24.05.2017 that accepting the employment of seven employees and neglecting others (including all the petitioners) seems to be biasness.
The suspension of seven persons were revoked on 11.07.2017 for the period from 11.07.2017 to 31.03.2018, and they are still working; however, for the petitioners no decision was taken.
6. The petitioners preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6752 of 2017 on 22.11.2017 challenging the suspension order dated 07.10.2016 and handing over the charge. Further a prayer was made for a direction upon the respondents for payment of salary/honorarium to them since, 01.08.2016. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 10.04.2018 in the following terms: 5
2025:JHHC:34926 "14. In the first place, it needs to be recorded that the enquiry report dated 29.03.2017 would indicate that no conclusive finding on the alleged illegality committed in appointment of the petitioners has been recorded by the departmental committee. The complaints which were received in the Chief Minister's Secretariat written by Swaraj Foundation, Koderma and one Ravi Shankar Prasad refer to continuation of Sudeep Sanyal on the post of Statistical Officer, a post which according to the complainants was abolished. There is no complaint on illegality or irregularity in appointment of any of the petitioners except, the said Sudeep Sanyal. Under MoU & Contract Service Agreement executed between JSACS and the petitioners, termination of the service agreement can be under Clause H on the ground of improper conduct by the appointee. Service conditions of the petitioners entitle them for 10 days' medical leave, 30 days' earned leave, travelling and dearness allowance and maternity leave in case of female appointee as per the Rules of Jharkhand Government. Under Clause 4 of Finance Department letter dated 05.07.2002, conduct rules applicable to the Government employees have been made applicable to the contractual employees. Admittedly, no regular departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioners, for no charge-memo has been served to them; only a show-cause notice was issued on 07.10.2016. In the above facts the enquiry report dated 29.03.2017, at best, can be a preliminary fact-
finding report, which may form foundation for initiating a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioners. Filing of voluminous records running into more than 1700 pages, prima facie, establishes that a decision on the alleged illegality/irregularity in appointment of the petitioners cannot be inferred lightly. It is a matter of record that the petitioners were placed under suspension on 07.10.2016 without a show-cause notice and payment of honorarium to them was stopped. In any case suspension of the petitioners cannot be continued any further, particularly in view of the aforesaid facts and the enquiry report dated 29.03.2017.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned orders of suspension contained in Annexure-5 series, all dated 07.10.2016 are quashed. Consequently, the impugned order contained in letter dated 07.10.2016 vide Annexure-7 stands quashed. The petitioners shall be assigned their duties, within two weeks and they shall be paid salary/honorarium for the period 01.08.2016 to 06.10.2016, as well as, for the current period. A decision on payment of salary/honorarium for the period from 07.10.2016 shall be taken by the competent authority.
16. The writ petition stands allowed, in the above terms."
7. Thereafter, the State of Jharkhand preferred a Letters Patent Appeal on 07.05.2018 and the same was registered on 10.05.2018. The Letters Patent Appeal was numbered as L.P.A. No. 239 of 2018. By an order dated 08.01.2019 the said appeal preferred by the State of Jharkhand was disposed of in the following terms:
7. Now, the question arises as to whether we shall interfere with the judgment of the learned First Court, quashing the order of suspension. The writ petitioners had remained suspended for the period between 7th October, 2016 till the suspension order was 6 2025:JHHC:34926 quashed by the learned First Court on 10th April, 2018. The period of suspension thus was of about one and half years.
8. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that during the interim period the contract tenure was over in April, 2017. But that question is not in lis so far as this appeal is concerned. We do not find any observation of the learned First Court about the effect of lapse of tenure of the contract. On the decision of the learned First Court in quashing the order of suspension ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another {(2015) 7 SCC 291} is applicable. It has been held in this decision that suspension for an indeterminate period, if not based on sound reasoning, contemporaneously available on record, would render it punitive in nature. We have referred to the length of time the writ petitioners remained under suspension and, therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), we do not want to interfere with the order of the learned First Court so far as quashing of the order of suspension is concerned.
9. As regards the nature of appointments of the writ petitioners in the subject posts, we direct the concerned authority to take a decision within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order upon giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners. We do not make any observation on the point of continuity of employment of the writ petitioners as that question is not before us in this proceeding and was not the subject matter of dispute in the writ petition also. Though in ground no. VIII of the memorandum of appeal that point has been raised, in the writ petition itself only the two orders were under substantive challenge. That question has not been determined by the learned First Court and it does not appear that the learned First Court was addressed on that point. But it shall be open for the writ petitioners to press that point before the appropriate authority, who had appointed them, at the time of hearing or final decision, if necessary. The respondents-writ petitioners shall be entitled to make a fresh representation on that count within a period of four weeks.
10. This appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Connected application (I.A. No. 4263 of 2018) shall also stand disposed of, as we have disposed of the main appeal.
8. Pursuant to the order dated 08.01.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 239 of 2018, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners and the time was given till 06.02.2019 to file the reply.
On 06.02.2019, the petitioners filed their reply stating therein that the petitioners required certain documents from the office noting for which an appropriate application has been made under the provisions of Right to Information Act, and as soon as the petitioners get the same, the petitioners will file their reply. The respondents issued a letter dated 07.02.2019 and has asked the petitioners to physically appear on 13.02.2019. 7
2025:JHHC:34926 The petitioners attended the proceeding dated 13.02.2019 and submitted their written reply with the relevant enclosures. As the petitioners has not got the reply under Right to Information Act, 2005 the petitioners submitted the documents as available with them.
9. Thereafter, the State of Jharkhand preferred an S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was marked as S.L.P.(C) No. 4478 of 2019. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 18.02.2019 has been pleased to observe:
"Issue notice confined to the question of quantum of back-wages to be made over to the respondents/employees, pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, subject to the petitioners' reinstating the respondents/employees by 01.03.2019. If no orders of reinstatement are passed and the respondents/employees are not reinstated by 01.03.2019, this petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to Court.
Notice shall issue only after an affidavit is field by the petitioners that the respondents have been reinstated in service in terms of the aforementioned direction, returnable on 05.04.2019. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
Upon reinstatement, the petitioners will be at liberty to conduct the inquiry in terms of paragraph 9 of the judgment of the High Court, presently under appeal.
Until further orders, there shall be interim stay of further proceedings in the contempt."
In compliance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 11 were reinstated on 25.02.2019 and notices were served upon them. The petitioner no.4 was also reinstated on 28.02.2019.
After reinstatement and during the pendency of the aforesaid S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Respondent no.4 passed reasoned order vide different letters dated 15.03.2019, whereby and whereunder, the appointment of all fifteen employees. including all the petitioners, have been declared illegal and it was further informed that the contract of petitioner no. 1 to 11 will be terminated after issuance of 30 days' 8 2025:JHHC:34926 notice in advance, and the petitioner no.12 and 13 will not be reinstated.
The Respondent no.4 issued Letter No.1066 dated 18.03.2019 whereby and whereunder, the petitioner no.1 to 11 have been informed that their services will be terminated automatically after 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
10. The S.L.P. (C) No. 4478 of 2019 was finally disposed of vide order dated 09.05.2019 in the following terms:
"On 18.02.2019, notice was issued by this Court confined to the question of quantum of back wages to be made over to the respondents. The appellants were however directed to reinstate the said respondents by 01.03.2019. Said respondents were reinstated but within 20 days of their reinstatement, by reasoned order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the Project Director, Jharkhand State AIDS Control Society, Ranchi, their services were terminated.
Since notice was confined only to the quantum of back wages and the reinstatement as ordered by this Court had been effected, the only question that arises is what should be payable to the respondents by way of back wages.
Since a reasoned order terminating the services of the respondents has been passed, said respondents may take recourse to law and challenge the order, if so advised.
As regards back wages, in our view, ends of justice would be met if we direct the appellants to make over 25% of the back wages as indicated in the chart referred to above or Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) whichever is greater, to each of the respondents. We order accordingly.
The amount shall be made over within six weeks from today. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the order of termination, the legality of which, if challenged, be gone into at the appropriate stage.
The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms."
11. In the instant case, the State Government have filed their Counter Affidavit and has taken a stand that the appointment of the petitioners were illegal, it was a backdoor entry and no proper procedure of appointment was followed. Further, it was stated in the Counter Affidavit that National Aids Control Society Guidelines were not followed for appointment and since the appointment was illegal there was no contract extension after 31.03.2017. Further it was stated that the post was regular 9 2025:JHHC:34926 on deputation and the Jharkhand State Aids Control Society was Project based and running under National Aids Control Organization, hence, regularization of the petitioners was not possible.
12. The petitioners had filed their rejoinder and it was stated as follows:-
a. Petitioners' appointment was approved by the Project Director as per the power delegated to him by the Governing Body as per the rules and regulations of the society. b. Petitioners have been discriminated against and the respondents have resorted to adopt pick and choose method by extending the services of seven employees who were also not appointed as alleged by them i.e., following the due process of selection.
c. The appointments made by then Project Director for five employees were also not found to be true as per the due process of selection and the statements of the respondents and the report of the committee are contradictory to each other. d. There is discrimination and pick and choose method is being adopted by the respondents.
e. The statements of the respondents would suggest that the extension of services of those employees was done because they were recruited from the waiting list of district level panel of computer operator of JRHMS. It is submitted that JRHMS is a different society and the petitioners were working under JSACS. The working and the rules and regulations of both the societies are different, which cannot be denied by the respondents. It is further submitted that from the report of the Committee annexed as (Annexure-R/1 at page 24-40) to the rejoinder, all such employees out of seven who are still working with the respondents, the report of the committee suggests that their appointments were done on 18.11.2008, but their salary is being paid since April, 2008 by the respondent-JSACS, which is contradictory in nature. It is further submitted that the report of the committee would further suggest that out of the waiting list, only five employees were taken from the waiting list of JRHMS, whereas the respondents have said that those seven persons were taken from the waiting list. These are the contradictions and lacunae which have not been answered by the respondents in their counter affidavit.
13. Submissions on behalf of the petitioners: 10
2025:JHHC:34926 i. Petitioners were appointed on contractual basis in Jharkhand State AIDS Control Society on different dates, these appointments were made pursuant to the vacancy and the letter given by National AIDS Control Society.
ii. Petitioners are working for more than 10 years with Jharkhand State AIDS Control Society without any break and are having proper work experience and knowledge in their field, and moreover, now their age limit has also been crossed for applying to any fresh appointment.
iii. Petitioners have discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the Respondents and there has been no allegation of misconduct ever alleged on the Petitioners and no departmental proceedings or any other disciplinary proceedings have never been initiated against the Petitioners iv. In the order dated 9.5.2019 passed in S.L.P.(C) No.4478 of 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "on 18.2.2019, notice was issued by this Court confined to the question of quantum of back wages to be made over to the respondents. The appellants were however directed to reinstate the said respondents by 1.3.2019. Said respondents were reinstated but within 20 days of their reinstatement, by reasoned order dated 15.3.2019 passed by the Project Director, Jharkhand State AIDS Control Society, Ranchi, their services were terminated".
v. Thus, it is apparent from the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners by 01.03.2019 and in compliance of the said order, the petitioners were reinstated in service, however, 11 2025:JHHC:34926 within 20 days of their reinstatement, the petitioners have been terminated by the reasoned order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the Respondent no.4.
vi. The respondents have initiated an enquiry way back in the year 2016-2017 itself, which was concluded in arbitrary and haste manner within 20 days only after the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to reinstate the petitioners in service and thereafter have passed the impugned reasoned order. This implies that the respondents want to resort ad- hocism and create vicious circle of makeshift and temporary appointment which has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The alleged enquiry initiated way back was only on the pretext of one W.P.(PIL) No.686 of 2017 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 05.10.2018. vii. Respondent no.4 is adopting discriminatory approach and resorting to pick and choose approach, which is apparent from the certain orders issued by the respondents whereby the respondents have extended the services of seven employees without following the proper procedure of law. viii. It has been submitted that the respondents instead of resorting to a regular appointment process are again resorting to ad-hocism and that too by the selective, allowing seven persons to continue on temporary basis, but discriminating against the petitioners.
ix. The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable.
14. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents:
It has been submitted by the Respondents that the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity of hearing and the 12 2025:JHHC:34926 petitioners were recruited without publishing of Advertisement and without following NACO Guidelines of Recruitment (Advertisement, Receipts of Applications, Written Test/ Interview etc.).
Walking Interviews are not a permissible mode of recruitment and the petitioner do not have requisite qualifications/experience.
It has been further contended that post of Statistical Officer was abolished under NACP-IV and Nine fourth Grade Staffs were taken in service against two sanctioned posts.
Findings
15. From perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the sum and substance for terminating the services of the petitioners were following:-
a. The petitioners were recruited without publishing advertisement.
b. The petitioners do not have the requisite qualification/ experience and the post of Statistical Officer was abolished.
c. Nine fourth Grade Staffs were taken in service against only two sanctioned posts.
d. The appointment of the petitioners was illegal.
Now the question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the findings with respect to illegality in the appointment of the petitioners warrant interference. To answer the said question, it is necessary to look at the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the said issue.13
2025:JHHC:34926
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in the case of Pawan Kumar Tiwary and Others Versus Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Others1 has held:-
"22. The Division Bench also placed reliance on the procedural deviation from the regular advertisement process, by observing that the internal notice issued by the Chief Engineer did not amount to a proper recruitment notification. While procedural irregularities, if proven to be mala fide or substantially affecting fairness, may vitiate a selection process, in the present case, the selection was conducted through tests and interviews overseen by a selection committee. The entire process culminated in formal appointment letters being issued. As held by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), mere technical Irregularities in appointment processes and in the absence of evidence of illegality, arbitrariness or fraud cannot be a ground to undo appointments, especially when the appointees are not at fault.
23. The Division Bench appears to have blurred the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments. In Vikas Pratap Singh (supra), this Court held that an appointment made without following every procedural formality may be irregular, but it does not become illegal unless it violates statutory provisions or is made without the existence of a post. This Court observed that if the appointment is to a sanctioned post, made by a competent authority, and not tainted by fraud or deceit, it cannot be labelled illegal merely due to some procedural lapse. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by this reasoning. The posts were sanctioned, the appellants were duly qualified, and the appointments were made by the competent authority after following due process of selection and at worst, any infirmity could only render the appointments irregular, not illegal. In R.S. Garg v. State of U.P., this Court held that appointments made within sanctioned strength, even if temporary or irregular, do not automatically become illegal unless shown to be in violation of statutory rules. There is no evidence or even a finding that the posts were not available or were created in violation of recruitment rules.
24. It is by now well settled in service jurisprudence that the validity of an individual appointment must be assessed on the basis of the appointee's own merit, eligibility, and conformity to the applicable rules. Courts must resist the tendency to issue blanket invalidations of entire batches of appointments merely on the basis of procedural infirmities that affect only a portion of the appointments. The principles of fairness, proportionality, and individual justice are foundational to administrative law and demand that a case-by-case analysis be undertaken before issuing sweeping orders of cancellation.
25. This Court has in several decisions, including State of Bihar v.
Upendra Narayan Singh, emphasized that when appointments are found to be irregular, the inquiry must focus on whether such irregularity amounts to illegality, and whether the appointee had any role or knowledge of the deviation. If not, and the appointee was otherwise eligible, qualified, and appointed against a sanctioned vacancy, there is no justification for nullifying such appointment. The present appellants, as evidenced by record, fulfilled all eligibility conditions, were appointed within the sanctioned strength, and underwent the requisite selection process.
28. In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P, this Court has emphasized that the State, even in contractual or administrative 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1751 14 2025:JHHC:34926 matters, cannot act arbitrarily and must be guided by constitutional values. These observations gain special relevance in cases where authorities, rather than conducting granular scrutiny, proceed to cancel entire appointments in a sweeping manner.
31. The jurisprudence around irregular v. illegal appointments must not be blurred. An irregular appointment is one where procedure is not strictly followed but the appointee is otherwise qualified and the post is sanctioned. An illegal appointment, on the other hand, is void ab initio, such as where the appointee is ineligible or the post does not exist. When appointments are questioned on grounds of irregularity, the inquiry must not end with detecting the infirmity but must proceed further to distinguish those whose appointments are unimpeachable. Justice demands separation, not erasure.
32. The High Court failed to apply the test of individual scrutiny, which is now a bedrock requirement in service jurisprudence. When appointments of large numbers of persons are questioned, courts and authorities must:
(i) Separate the legally sustainable from the unsustainable
(ii) Apply the test of eligibility and sanctioned strength
(iii) Assess whether there was fraud or misrepresentation
(iv) Provide an opportunity of hearing before cancellation
35. It must be underscored that the jurisprudential divide between irregular and illegal appointments is neither artificial nor academic.
An appointment may be irregular if it deviates from established procedure, but it crosses into the realm of illegality only where it violates statutory mandates, is made without the existence of a sanctioned post, or is tainted by fraud. Conflating the two categories leads to manifest injustice, particularly when individuals, who have no role in the procedural defect, are visited with the severest consequence of termination."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment rendered in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others. Versus District Bar Association, Bandipora,2 has held:-
19. The judgment in Renu³ does not preclude, as a principle of law, the framing of an appropriate scheme of regularisation in appropriate situations meeting the norms spelt out in Umadevi (3) and the decisions which have followed. Dealing with a scheme framed for regularisation, this Court in Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa held as follows: (Amarendra Kumar case12, SCC pp. 607, 609 & 610, paras 38, 43 & 45) "38. Equally important is the fact that even after declaring the true legal position on the subject and even after deprecating the practice of appointing people by means other than legitimate, this Court felt that those who had served for ten years or so may be put to extreme hardship if they were to be discharged from service and, therefore, directed the formulation of a scheme for their regularisation. This was no doubt a one-time measure, but so long as the appointment sought to be regularised was not illegal, the scheme envisaged by para 53 of the decision extracted above permitted the State to regularise such employees. Dr Dhavan argued that the appellant Stipendiary Engineers had, by the time the decision in Umadevi (3) case was pronounced, qualified for the benefit of a scheme of regularisation having 2 2017 (3) SCC 410 15 2025:JHHC:34926 put in ten years as ad hoc Assistant Engineers and fifteen years if their tenure was to be counted from the date of their employment as Stipendiary Engineers. He contended that even in the absence of a Validation Act, Stipendiary Engineers appointed on ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineers, who had worked for nearly ten years to the full satisfaction of the State Government would have been entitled to regularisation of their services in terms of any such scheme.
43. As to what would constitute an irregular appointment is no longer res integra. The decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L.. Kesari 13, has examined that question and explained the principle regarding regularisation as enunciated in Umadevi (3) case. The decision in that case summed up the following three essentials for regularisation:
(1) the employees have worked for ten years or more. (2) that they have so worked in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal, and (3) they should have possessed the minimum qualification stipulated for the appointment. Subject to these three requirements being satisfied, even if the appointment process did not involve open competitive selection, the appointment would be treated irregular and not illegal and thereby qualify for regularisation. Para 7 in this regard is apposite and may be extracted at this stage: (M.L. Kesari case 13, SCC p. 250) '7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularisation" enunciated in Umadevi (3). if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.
45. The upshot of the above discussion is that not only because in Umadevi (3) case this Court did not disturb the appointments already made or regularisation granted, but also because the decision itself permitted regularisation in case of irregular appointments, the legislative enactment granting such regularisation does not call for interference at this late stage when those appointed or regularised have already started retiring having served their respective departments, in some cases for as long as 22 years." 16
2025:JHHC:34926
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra) has clearly held at paragraph-19 that even if the appointment process did not involve open competitive selection, the appointment would be treated as irregular and not illegal. The impugned order has been passed treating the appointment of the petitioners to be illegal as no advertisement was issued. The said finding is clearly perverse, and is in violation of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir (supra).
19. The jurisprudential divide between irregular and illegal appointments has been dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Tiwary (supra). There is no allegation or proof that the appointment has been obtained by fraud, collusion, on misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. At best, even if assuming the contention of the respondents to be true, the process of appointment suffers from procedural lapses like without publishing advertisement which was not attributable to the petitioners. Such infirmities, however, render the appointments to be irregular, not illegal.
20. The petitioners had the requisite qualification/experience as the Project Director had appointed the petitioners which was approved by the Governing Body under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand and every year on account of experience and workings, performance appraisal was done and approved by 17 2025:JHHC:34926 the Project Director and the contract of the petitioners were renewed.
The ground taken by the respondents with respect to qualification/ experience is not tenable in the eyes of law as the appointments were made by the competent authority and on the basis of the experience and performance contract was renewed.
21. In view of the aforesaid facts and the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the reasoned order contained in different letters all dated 15.03.2019 which is at Annexure-9 (Series) and letter dated 18.03.2019 which is at Annexure-10; is hereby, quashed and set-aside.
The petitioners shall be reinstated in service forthwith and the consequential benefits shall be released preferably within 16 weeks from the date of production / receipt of this order.
22. At the cost of repetition, the appointment of the petitioners cannot be termed to be illegal in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir (supra) as the appointments made without publishing of the advertisement can be termed to irregular and not illegal and thereby qualify for regularization in term of paragraph-19 of the said judgment.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh & Others. versus State of U.P. and Another3 has held
11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 18 2025:JHHC:34926 It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term "ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular,"
the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India³ in the following paragraphs:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
....19
2025:JHHC:34926
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long -term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual, even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.""
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not "full-time" employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals.
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial corrodes confidence in public stringency certainly has a place in public policy, 20 2025:JHHC:34926 but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts:
All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the Court directed a fresh State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall or equivalent) without any be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay- level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization/ retirement/ death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgment.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an 21 2025:JHHC:34926 affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment.
24. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners work cannot be said to be temporary in nature; rather perennial and is one of the important works in an office, thus, this Court is of the firm view that it is necessary to regularize the services of the petitioners.
The respondents are, accordingly directed to regularize the services of the petitioners in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra). The petitioners' case for consideration for regularization of services shall be taken within 12 weeks after reinstatement of services of the petitioners.
25. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Pending I.As, if any also stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) November 24, 2025 Amardeep/-
A.F.R. Uploaded 24/11/2025 22