Case Note & Summary
This batch of writ petitions was filed by 339 petitioners challenging a common judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, which rejected their claim for regularisation or permanency in service. The petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc or daily-wage basis in various central government departments without following the prescribed recruitment rules. They had served for several years and sought regularisation based on their long service and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The Tribunal held that such appointments did not confer any right to regularisation. The High Court, per Dipankar Datta, CJ, upheld the Tribunal's order, reasoning that appointments made in violation of recruitment rules cannot be regularised merely because of long service. The court emphasised that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution require adherence to equality in public employment. The petitions were dismissed, and the interim applications were disposed of.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Temporary Employees - Ad-hoc/Daily-wage Appointments - Recruitment Rules - Petitioners, 339 temporary employees, challenged CAT order rejecting their claim for regularisation - Court held that appointments made without following recruitment rules do not confer any right to regularisation - Mere long service does not create a right to permanency - Held that the CAT order was correct and petitions dismissed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether temporary employees appointed on ad-hoc/daily-wage basis without following recruitment rules are entitled to regularisation or permanency in service.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all writ petitions, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Interim applications were disposed of.
Law Points
- Regularisation of temporary employees
- Ad-hoc appointments
- Recruitment rules
- Doctrine of legitimate expectation
- Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution
- Central Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction
