Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the State of Gujarat's appeal against a High Court judgment directing consideration of contractual employees for regularisation. The respondents were appointed in 2004 as drivers on a fixed-term contract of eleven months in the 'Post-Earthquake Redevelopment Programme', a temporary project unit. Upon the project's closure, the State decided to transfer them to the Indian Red Cross Society, but they filed a writ petition seeking regularisation and absorption in government service. The Single Judge dismissed the petition in 2011, noting the temporary nature of their appointments. The Division Bench, in an LPA, granted interim relief in 2011, continuing their service with the State, and in 2021, directed the State to consider their cases for absorption sympathetically, including by creating supernumerary posts, based on their seventeen years of service. The core legal issues were whether such contractual appointments in temporary projects entitle employees to regularisation, and whether the High Court's direction, especially regarding supernumerary posts, was valid. The State argued that the appointments were for fixed terms in a temporary unit, with no right to regularisation, and that service under interim orders should not count. The respondents relied on precedents like State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, contending that long service warrants absorption. The Supreme Court analyzed that the respondents were appointed in a temporary project unit, not in regular establishments or sanctioned posts, and their continuation for ten years was due to an interim order. It held that contractual appointments in such contexts do not create a right to regularisation, and periods under interim orders must be excluded from service calculations. The Court further ruled that the High Court's direction to create supernumerary posts was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, quashing the High Court's judgment and restoring the Single Judge's order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation and Absorption - Contractual Appointments in Temporary Projects - No Right to Regularisation - Employees were appointed on contractual basis for a fixed term of eleven months in a temporary 'Project Implementation Unit' for the 'Post-Earthquake Redevelopment Programme' - The Supreme Court held that such appointments in temporary units created for specific projects do not confer any right to absorption or regularisation in government service, as they were not on sanctioned posts in regular establishments (Paras 5-6). B) Service Law - Regularisation and Absorption - Effect of Interim Orders on Service Period - Period Under Interim Order Excluded - Employees continued in service for ten years pursuant to an interim order passed by the High Court in 2011 - The Court ruled that the period of service under interim orders must be excluded when considering claims for regularisation based on long service, following the principle in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (Paras 7-8). C) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Limits on High Court Directions - Creation of Supernumerary Posts - The High Court directed the State to consider regularisation 'if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts' - The Supreme Court held such a direction to create supernumerary posts for absorption is unsustainable and wholly without jurisdiction, as it exceeds judicial authority (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in directing the State to consider the cases of contractual employees for absorption and regularisation, including by creating supernumerary posts, based on their long service period of seventeen years, despite their initial appointment being for a fixed term in a temporary project unit.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, and restored the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
Law Points
- Contractual appointments for fixed terms in temporary projects do not create a right to regularisation
- service continuation under interim orders cannot be counted for absorption claims
- High Court cannot direct creation of supernumerary posts for regularisation
