Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Supreme Court in Slate of H.P. v. Ashwani Kumar, , held that no vested right is created in temporary employment and therefore the High Court was not justified in issuing direction to regularise the services of the temporary employees. In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd 's case (supra), it was held that regularisation of an ad hoc appointee can be effected only in accordance with the rules for direct appointment. In that case, since the rules of the Hindustan Shipyard Limited provided for regular appointment of medical officer only after being found suitable by duly constituted Selection Committee, the direction issued by the High Court for regularisation of Medical Officer appointed on ad hoc basis was held impermissible by the Apex Court. In that case, it was also held that the mere fact that the regular appointments had not been made after appointment of some medical officers due to which they had no opportunity for being considered for regular selection, could not entitle them to regularisation. In B. Satyanarayana v. TTD, , this Court held that no mandamus would lie to the employer to regularise the services of an employee unless he satisfies that he was appointed against the existing vacancy and that the selection procedure laid down by the relevant recruitment rules was followed in appointing him.

10. In recent times, there are several pronouncements of the Apex Court dealing with regularisation or confirmation of the services of ad hoc/temporary employees. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bishamber Dull, , held that appointment on regular basis after selection according to recruitment rules is a condition precedent for granting regularisation. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. , held:

"So far as the question of confirmation of these employees whose entry itself was illegal and void, is concerned, it is to be noted that question of confirmation or regularisation of an irregularly appointed candidate would arise if the candidate concerned is appointed in an irregular manner or on ad hoc basis against an available vacancy which is already sanctioned. But if the initial entry itself is unauthorized and is not against any sanctioned vacancy, question of regularising the incumbent on such a non-existing vacancy would never survive for consideration and even if such purported regularisation or confirmation is given it would be an exercise in futility. It would amount to decorating a still born baby."

In the case of P. Ravindran v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, , the Apex Court held that the regularisation of the services of the ad hoc persons who had come to the service through backdoor entry cannot be ordered. In E. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala, , the refusal of the High Court of Kerala to grant the relief of regularisation to the petitioners appointed de hors the recruitment rule although officiating for a long time of 14 years is upheld by the Supreme Court. The plea of the petitioners therein to direct the employer to relax age limit was also turned down by the Supreme Court on the ground that it is not for the Court to relax age limit but for the employer.