Public employment regularisation fails for appointments made outside the constitutional recruitment scheme; contempt relief also requires clear wilful disobedience.

Appointments to public employment made without advertisement, employment exchange notification, or the prescribed selection process cannot be regularised as a matter of right because they fall outside the constitutional scheme under Articles 14 and 16 and the applicable recruitment rules. The distinction between irregular appointments, which may be cured in limited situations, and illegal appointments, which are made in total disregard of that scheme, is decisive; only the former may be considered for one-time regularisation in sanctioned posts under Umadevi. A contempt-based direction cannot be sustained unless there is a clear finding of wilful disobedience, and a later State circular may negate such a premise where it supersedes the earlier policy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in directing regularisation of daily-wage employees and in proceeding on the premise that the Corporation had committed contempt despite the later State circular and the constitutional requirements governing public employment.

Analysis: The Corporation, being a State instrumentality, was bound by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and by the applicable recruitment rules. The appointments in question were made without advertisement, without notifying the employment exchange, and without following the prescribed selection process, so they could not claim regularisation as a matter of right. The controlling distinction is between irregular appointments, which may be curable in limited circumstances, and illegal appointments, which are made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme and cannot be regularised. The Constitution Bench in Umadevi confined one-time regularisation to irregular appointments in duly sanctioned posts and rejected any further bypassing of the constitutional scheme. The Corporation's later conduct could not be treated as contempt when it was acting under a subsequent State direction that had superseded its earlier policy and when the High Court had proceeded without recording a proper finding of contumacious violation.

Conclusion: The direction for regularisation and the contempt-based relief could not be sustained; the impugned order was liable to be set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the High Court's order was set aside because appointments made in breach of the constitutional recruitment scheme could not be regularised through contempt proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Regularisation can cure only procedural irregularities in otherwise lawful appointments to sanctioned posts, and not appointments made in complete violation of the constitutional scheme of public employment; contempt relief cannot be founded on a disputed subsequent administrative action absent a clear finding of wilful disobedience.

---