Regularization of contractual public employment requires a legal right and statutory duty; long service alone is insufficient.

Regularization of contractual public employment was held to depend on a legal right and corresponding statutory duty; long service alone does not create an enforceable claim to permanent absorption, and mandamus cannot issue without that foundation. The Court applied the binding principles governing temporary, casual and contractual appointments and found that the earlier approach of the Tribunal and High Court needed fresh scrutiny in light of the later Constitution Bench ruling. The matter was therefore remitted to the High Court for reconsideration under the governing law on regularization.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim for regularization of contractual service could survive in light of the governing Constitution Bench decision, and whether the matter should be reconsidered by the High Court.

Analysis: The Court applied the principles laid down on regularization of temporary, casual and contractual appointments in public employment. It accepted that long service by itself does not create an enforceable right to permanent absorption, and that a writ of mandamus cannot issue in the absence of a legal right and corresponding statutory duty. In view of the binding effect of the later Constitution Bench ruling, the earlier approach adopted by the Tribunal and the High Court required fresh consideration.

Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the matter was sent back to the High Court for reconsideration in the light of the governing law on regularization.

---