Regularisation of ad hoc engineering appointments can survive equality review when classification is rational and service is continuous.

A validating law cures a pre-existing legal defect in a prior act or proceeding; a measure that instead deems ad hoc appointees to be regularly appointed operates as a regularisation scheme, not a strict validation law. The text also states that a limited one-time regularisation measure for a distinct class of qualified, continuously serving ad hoc engineers can satisfy Articles 14 and 16 where the classification is rational and linked to the object of utilising their services. It further explains that seniority may count uninterrupted officiating service after regularisation, so the challenged seniority rule was treated as constitutionally permissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned enactment was a true validation law or in substance a measure regularising ad hoc appointments; (ii) whether the enactment, including the exclusion of degree-holding Junior Engineers, offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; (iii) whether the provision granting seniority from the date of ad hoc appointment was unconstitutional.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned enactment was a true validation law or in substance a measure regularising ad hoc appointments

Analysis: A validating law presupposes a pre-existing act, rule, or proceeding that has been found invalid or suffers from a legal defect, which the legislature then cures by removing the basis of invalidity. The enactment in question did not validate any prior void act or proceeding; rather, it created a deeming fiction by which ad hoc Assistant Engineers were treated as regularly appointed and absorbed in service. Its substance, not its label, governed its character.

Conclusion: The measure was held not to be a validation enactment in the strict sense, but a law regularising the services of the concerned ad hoc Assistant Engineers.

Issue (ii): Whether the enactment, including the exclusion of degree-holding Junior Engineers, offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

Analysis: Regularisation of irregular appointments is not an acceptable alternative mode of recruitment as a general rule, but prior regularisations are not automatically unsettled, and a one-time measure may be justified in appropriate circumstances. The beneficiaries of the enactment formed a distinct class, namely unemployed graduate Engineers initially appointed as Stipendiary Engineers under a State policy and later continued as ad hoc Assistant Engineers. The classification had a rational nexus with the object of utilising their services and addressing unemployment. The challenge based on under-inclusion also failed because Article 14 does not require the legislature to extend a reform to every possible comparable group where a reasonable basis exists for a limited measure. In-service degree-holding Junior Engineers who had also worked as ad hoc Assistant Engineers were nevertheless found entitled to similar regularisation on account of long continuous service and parity of situation.

Conclusion: The enactment was upheld as constitutionally valid, and the degree-holding Junior Engineers working as ad hoc Assistant Engineers were also held entitled to regularisation from the date the enactment came into force.

Issue (iii): Whether the provision granting seniority from the date of ad hoc appointment was unconstitutional

Analysis: Seniority depends on the legal character of the appointment and the continuity of service. Where an appointment is not made in accordance with the prescribed procedure but the appointee continues uninterruptedly until regularisation, the period of officiating service may be counted for seniority. The challenged provision therefore fell within the principle permitting counting of continuous officiating service after regularisation. The regularised degree-holding Junior Engineers were also directed to rank below promotees and above the regularised Stipendiary Engineers, with inter se seniority among the two regularised groups to be determined by the date of first ad hoc appointment as Assistant Engineer.

Conclusion: The seniority provision was upheld and found not to suffer from constitutional infirmity.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's invalidation of the legislation was set aside, the impugned enactment was sustained, and limited consequential regularisation relief was extended to similarly placed in-service degree-holding Junior Engineers, with seniority adjusted accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislative measure regularising long-continuing irregular appointments of duly qualified persons in sanctioned posts may withstand constitutional scrutiny where the classification is rational, the object is legitimate, and the grant of seniority follows the principle of continuous officiation after uninterrupted service and subsequent regularisation.

---