Regularization of irregular appointments denied where service was outside recruitment rules and sustained only by interim orders

Appointments made on an ad hoc or temporary basis outside the prescribed recruitment rules could not be regularized, because regularization cannot cure an appointment made contrary to the constitutional requirement of equal opportunity in public employment. Service continued only under interim court orders was not treated as compliant service, and the doctrine of equal pay for equal work did not create a right to permanency or regular appointment. The exception for irregular appointments in Umadevi was held inapplicable because the required period of service was not completed without court intervention. The directions granting service benefits and continuation were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents, who were appointed on an ad hoc and temporary basis without regular selection under the governing rules, were entitled to regularization in service; and whether continuation in service pursuant to interim court orders and reliance on equal pay or long service could justify such regularization.

Analysis: The appointments were made for leave vacancies and stop-gap arrangements under the service rules, without recruitment through the regular selection process contemplated by the governing provisions. The Court applied the principle that regularization cannot be used to cure an appointment that is contrary to the recruitment rules or the constitutional requirement of equal opportunity in public employment. It further held that service continued only because of interim judicial orders could not be treated as service rendered in compliance with the constitutional or statutory scheme, and that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work does not confer a right to permanency or regular appointment. The exception recognised for irregular appointments in Umadevi was found inapplicable because the respondents had not completed the requisite period of service without court intervention.

Conclusion: The respondents were not entitled to regularization, and the directions granting them service benefits and continuation could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The relief granted by the High Court was set aside and the challenge succeeded in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Appointments made dehors the prescribed recruitment rules and continued only under interim judicial protection cannot be regularized on the basis of length of service or equal pay, because regularization cannot validate an illegal or constitutionally impermissible appointment.

---