Retrospective regularisation and seniority under service rules upheld, while a delayed challenge failed for delay and laches.

Approved temporary service under the service rules could be counted towards probation and regularisation, so retrospective regularisation was valid where the employee had been selected in accordance with the recruitment rules and the appointment had received the requisite governmental approval. The resulting seniority and promotions were treated as flowing lawfully from that regularisation. A belated challenge to the appointment and consequential service benefits, brought long after gazettement and confirmation, was treated as stale and defeated by delay and laches. The note also records that the appeals succeeded, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the regularisation, promotions, and seniority remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the temporary appointee's service could be regularised retrospectively under the service rules so as to place him in the regular cadre and preserve his seniority and promotions; (ii) whether the challenge to the appointment and consequential promotions was barred by delay and laches.

Issue (i): whether the temporary appointee's service could be regularised retrospectively under the service rules so as to place him in the regular cadre and preserve his seniority and promotions.

Analysis: The appointment was made after compliance with the recruitment rules, including selection through the Public Service Commission and acceptance by the Governor. The rules recognised temporary service of a selected temporary Assistant Engineer and permitted such service, with Government approval, to count towards the prescribed probationary period. The retrospective effect of the regularisation order was therefore treated as a valid counting of earlier temporary service towards probation, not as an impermissible appointment outside the rules. On that basis, the later promotions and seniority position were held to flow validly from the regularisation.

Conclusion: The retrospective regularisation was valid and the consequential promotions and seniority were upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the challenge to the appointment and consequential promotions was barred by delay and laches.

Analysis: The challenge was brought many years after the appointment had been gazetted and after later confirmation orders had already been issued. The Court treated the grievance as stale and noted the absence of prompt action despite long knowledge of the service position.

Conclusion: The writ challenge was vitiated by delay and laches.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the writ petitions failed, leaving the regularisation, promotions, and seniority undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a direct recruit is validly selected under the applicable service rules and the rules authorise approved temporary service to be counted towards probation, retrospective regularisation to the regular cadre is not invalid merely because the initial order describes the appointment as temporary or contractual; a stale challenge may also be defeated by delay and laches.

---