LUCKNOW vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

No.6 to the writ petition. It is submitted that in pursuance of the appointment letter, petitioners are continuously working on their respective posts till date but instead of considering their cases for regularization, opposite parties have issued the impugned advertisement for recruitment on the said posts by direct recruitment on regular basis.

5. Learned counsel has also adverted to the letter dated 19.10.2020 issued by the Secretary of the State Information Commission indicating names of 43 persons currently employed by the Commission on temporary basis and a further names of 13 persons employed by the Commission on contract basis to submit that recommendation was made to the State Government for consideration of their cases for regularization despite aforesaid recommendation having been made and it being pending before the State Government, the impugned rejection order dated 24.07.2025 has been passed primarily on the ground that appointment of petitioners’ was made on temporary basis without following any procedure and therefore their regularization would be against Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that reasoning for rejection of petitioners' representation is erroneous.

6. It is further submitted that it is law settled by Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that for 3 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 persons employed by State or instrumentalities for more than 10 years continuously on temporary, daily wage, or ad hoc basis, they would have a pre- existing right for regularization prior to regular recruitment on the said posts. Learned counsel has placed reliance on following judgments:- “(1.) Jaggo versus Union of India & Ors.; 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, (2) Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs Umadevi & Ors.; (2006)4 SCC 1, (3) Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.; (2018)13 SCC 432, (4.) State of Karnataka & Ors. versus M.L. Kesari & Ors.; (2010) 9 SCC 247." 6A. He has also placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of "Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. versus State of Jharkhand & Ors.; (2018) 8 SCC 238.

7. Learned State counsel placing reliance on counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that in fact the alleged recommendation dated 19.10.2020 is not a recommendation at all and was merely an information supplied by the Commission to the State Government indicating persons employed by the Commission on ad hoc basis after the cut-off date of 30.06.1998 as indicated in Regularization Rules of 2001 (third amendment). Learned counsel has also adverted to paragraphs 14 and 18 of the counter affidavit to submit that the Commission is Statutory Body and as per provisions of Section 15 (4) of the Right to Information Act 2005, general superintendence, direction and management of affairs of State Information 4 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 Commission is vested with the State Chief Information Commissioner. He has also submitted that since there is no recommendation with regard to regularization of petitioners, the State Information Commission was within its jurisdiction to pass the rejection order.

8. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.4 and 5 has also refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners and has reiterated the grounds for rejection as indicated in the impugned order. It is submitted that since appointment of petitioners did not follow any prescribed rules or procedure, such appointments were made erroneously, the benefit of which cannot accrue to the petitioners. It is further submitted that regularization of petitioners on the said posts would be clearly in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also reiterated by him that the alleged recommendations dated 19.10.2020 were in fact not a recommendation for regularization of petitioners' cases but was information supplied by Commission in pursuance of directions issued by the State Government. He has also adverted to the order dated 22.04.2022 brought on record along with counter affidavit to submit that in pursuance of such directions, requisition was sent by the Commission for regular appointment on the said posts by direct recruitment and it is in pursuance thereof that the advertisement has been issued. It is also submitted that petitioners would not have vested right for regularization. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 6 on the instructions submits advertisement was issued in pursuance of directions of the State Government and requisition which was supplied to the opposite party No.6. Mr. Shikhar 5 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 Anand, learned counsel has also drawn attention to the appointment letter dated 01.02.2007 to submit that the letter itself indicated a condition that appointment of petitioners would be temporary only till regular selection was made on the said posts and once petitioners have accepted such a condition, they would be barred by principle of estoppel from challenging the same now or seeking regularization contrary to such a condition.

9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted between the parties that petitioners were initially appointed on a temporary basis on various Class III posts by means of order dated 01.02.2007.

10. The order clearly indicates that the appointments were temporary in nature and would continue till regular selection was made. It is also not denied by opposing parties that petitioners have continued on temporary basis with the Commission ever since their initial date of appointment.

11. With regard to right of petitioners for regularization, it is also admitted between the parties that there were no service rules at the initial induction/engagement pertaining to the post in question. The situation still exists and continues without any service rules having been notified for the said posts.

12. It is also admitted that petitioners have been continuously working on temporary basis with the Commission on class III post without any adverse reports against them. It is also admitted that since petitioners were engaged on temporary basis 6 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 in the year 2007, they are not covered by any of the regularization rules notified by the State Government.

13. The aspect of such regularization therefore is required to be considered in the light of judgments enunciated by Supreme Court as well as this Court.

14. In the recent judgment of Jaggo versus Union of India; 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, the aforesaid aspect has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the following manner:- "11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas—a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings.

12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the 7 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 indispensable nature of their work.

13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

16. The appellants' consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility.

17. ………………... The appellants' long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle.

19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and 8 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified.”

15. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus evident and not denied by the opposite parties that the petitioners throughout their tenure were engaged for performing essential duties which were indispensable for the day to day functioning of the office of the Commission. It is also not denied that the duties performed by petitioners were in fact the same as are required to be performed by regularly selected and appointed persons. It is thus also evident that despite being labelled as temporary employees, petitioners have performed the essential tasks on a continuous basis. As has been held in the case of Jaggo (supra), therefore in the considered opinion of this Court, their role even as temporary employees was not only essential but indistinguishable from that which is required to be performed by regular employees.

16. To that extent, the case of petitioners for regularization is clearly made out in terms of aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court.

17. The only apparent discordant note which can be noted is in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. versus Umadevi & Ors; (2006) 4 SSC 1, which is a proposition for the law that a distinction is required to be drawn between illegal and irregular appointments and it has been held that it is only in case of irregular appointments that the same can be regularized but such a benefit can not be extended to persons whose appointments are illegal in nature. 9 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025

18. In the present case, it is evident and admitted between the parties that there were no service rules governing the post on which petitioners were initially engaged on temporary basis. In the absence of any such service rules, evidently there was no prescribed procedure for such appointments. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that appointment of petitioners on temporary basis was without following any procedure since there was no procedure prescribed at all. In such circumstances, the engagement of petitioners as temporary employees with the Commission can at worst be termed to be irregular but not illegal in any manner.

19. The aforesaid aspect has been dealt with by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar (supra) in the following manner:- “9. The High Court dismissed the writ application relying on the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . But the appellants were employed basically in the year 1993; they had rendered service for three years, when they were offered the service on contract basis; it was not the case of back door entry; and there were no Rules in place for offering such kind of appointment. Thus, the appointment could not be said to be illegal and in contravention of Rules, as there were no such Rules available at the relevant point of time, when their temporary status was conferred w.e.f. 2-10-2002. The appellants were required to be appointed on regular basis as a one-time measure, as laid down in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . Since the appellants had completed 10 years of service and temporary status had been given by the respondents with retrospective effect from 2-10- 10 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 2002, we direct that the services of the appellants be regularised from the said date i.e. 2-10-2002, consequential benefits and the arrears of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today.”

20. The case of petitioners therefore may well be considered in terms of judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi (supra) as has been explained in the case of M. L. Kesari (supra) in the following manner:- “9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.

11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second ensure departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or 11 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10- 4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] ] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] as a one-time measure.”

21. The aforesaid aspect has also been considered in the case of Jaggo (supra) in the following manner:- “20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions State instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India5, it was held that held that procedural 12 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below: “6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…”

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving 13 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.”

22. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus evident that petitioners have an inherent right to be considered for regularization in terms of law enunciated by Supreme Court as indicated here-in-above prior to direct recruitment on regular basis on the aforesaid posts keeping in view their long, continuous and satisfactory services.

23. So far as the order of rejection dated

24.07.2025 is concerned, the reasoning indicated therein is clearly erroneous and is against the judgments of Supreme Court indicated here-in-above particularly since there was no service rule applicable upon the posts on which petitioners were appointed temporarily and therefore there was no 14 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 procedure required to be followed due to which the engagement of petitioners can at worst be held to be irregular but not illegal. In terms of judgments indicated here-in-above, regularization cannot be contrary to provisions of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India.

24. It is also evident that in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. versus State of Jharkhand & Ors.; (2018) 8 SCC 238, such an exercise for regularization was directed despite the fact that State came into existence only after the cut-off date.

25. Learned counsel for opposite parties no.4 & 5 has placed reliance on judgment rendered in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Versus Chandreshwar Pathak; (2014)13 SCC 232 to submit that any appointment made merely by inviting names from the employment exchange without inviting applications from all eligible candidates would not be in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has also been held that for a valid and legal appointment, mandatory compliance with constitutional requirement is a must.

26. With regard to aforesaid judgment, it is evident that the same was passed in the context that the respondent therein was temporarily appointed on the post of constable with stipulation that his service could be terminated without assigning any reason or show cause and was in fact terminated after issuing a show cause. The aforesaid case cannot be said to be a proposition for purposes of consideration for regularization. 15 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 It is no doubt true that such a proposition would be available in case of regular appointments to be made which are required to be in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but then again in the case of petitioners, as has been held in a catena of judgments indicated here-in- above, such engagement in service may be irregular but not illegal and would therefore give a legitimate expectation petitioners consideration of their cases for regularization.

27. In view of discussion made herein above, the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A writ in the nature of Mandamus is also issued commanding the opposing parties no.1 and 5 conjointly to consider cases of petitioners for regularization in terms of judgments indicated here-in-above. Such an exercise shall be taken prior to any appointment on the basis of direct recruitment regular selection advertisement dated 04.08.2023 which shall be kept in abeyance only with regard to the posts on which petitioners have been engaged in the State Information Commission decision petitioners' regularization. In case any post remains vacant despite such consideration, the aforesaid advertisement may revive and the posts which are vacant may subsequently be filled up by such recruitment in terms of the advertisement.

28. The exercise for consideration of petitioners' cases for regularization shall be concluded expeditiously within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority. 16 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025

29. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. October 14, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

No.6 to the writ petition. It is submitted that in pursuance of the appointment letter, petitioners are continuously working on their respective posts till date but instead of considering their cases for regularization, opposite parties have issued the impugned advertisement for recruitment on the said posts by direct recruitment on regular basis.

5. Learned counsel has also adverted to the letter dated 19.10.2020 issued by the Secretary of the State Information Commission indicating names of 43 persons currently employed by the Commission on temporary basis and a further names of 13 persons employed by the Commission on contract basis to submit that recommendation was made to the State Government for consideration of their cases for regularization despite aforesaid recommendation having been made and it being pending before the State Government, the impugned rejection order dated 24.07.2025 has been passed primarily on the ground that appointment of petitioners’ was made on temporary basis without following any procedure and therefore their regularization would be against Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that reasoning for rejection of petitioners' representation is erroneous.

6. It is further submitted that it is law settled by Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that for 3 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 persons employed by State or instrumentalities for more than 10 years continuously on temporary, daily wage, or ad hoc basis, they would have a pre- existing right for regularization prior to regular recruitment on the said posts. Learned counsel has placed reliance on following judgments:- “(1.) Jaggo versus Union of India & Ors.; 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, (2) Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs Umadevi & Ors.; (2006)4 SCC 1, (3) Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.; (2018)13 SCC 432, (4.) State of Karnataka & Ors. versus M.L. Kesari & Ors.; (2010) 9 SCC 247." 6A. He has also placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of "Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. versus State of Jharkhand & Ors.; (2018) 8 SCC 238.

7. Learned State counsel placing reliance on counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that in fact the alleged recommendation dated 19.10.2020 is not a recommendation at all and was merely an information supplied by the Commission to the State Government indicating persons employed by the Commission on ad hoc basis after the cut-off date of 30.06.1998 as indicated in Regularization Rules of 2001 (third amendment). Learned counsel has also adverted to paragraphs 14 and 18 of the counter affidavit to submit that the Commission is Statutory Body and as per provisions of Section 15 (4) of the Right to Information Act 2005, general superintendence, direction and management of affairs of State Information 4 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 Commission is vested with the State Chief Information Commissioner. He has also submitted that since there is no recommendation with regard to regularization of petitioners, the State Information Commission was within its jurisdiction to pass the rejection order.

8. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.4 and 5 has also refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners and has reiterated the grounds for rejection as indicated in the impugned order. It is submitted that since appointment of petitioners did not follow any prescribed rules or procedure, such appointments were made erroneously, the benefit of which cannot accrue to the petitioners. It is further submitted that regularization of petitioners on the said posts would be clearly in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also reiterated by him that the alleged recommendations dated 19.10.2020 were in fact not a recommendation for regularization of petitioners' cases but was information supplied by Commission in pursuance of directions issued by the State Government. He has also adverted to the order dated 22.04.2022 brought on record along with counter affidavit to submit that in pursuance of such directions, requisition was sent by the Commission for regular appointment on the said posts by direct recruitment and it is in pursuance thereof that the advertisement has been issued. It is also submitted that petitioners would not have vested right for regularization. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 6 on the instructions submits advertisement was issued in pursuance of directions of the State Government and requisition which was supplied to the opposite party No.6. Mr. Shikhar 5 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 Anand, learned counsel has also drawn attention to the appointment letter dated 01.02.2007 to submit that the letter itself indicated a condition that appointment of petitioners would be temporary only till regular selection was made on the said posts and once petitioners have accepted such a condition, they would be barred by principle of estoppel from challenging the same now or seeking regularization contrary to such a condition.

9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted between the parties that petitioners were initially appointed on a temporary basis on various Class III posts by means of order dated 01.02.2007.

10. The order clearly indicates that the appointments were temporary in nature and would continue till regular selection was made. It is also not denied by opposing parties that petitioners have continued on temporary basis with the Commission ever since their initial date of appointment.

11. With regard to right of petitioners for regularization, it is also admitted between the parties that there were no service rules at the initial induction/engagement pertaining to the post in question. The situation still exists and continues without any service rules having been notified for the said posts.

12. It is also admitted that petitioners have been continuously working on temporary basis with the Commission on class III post without any adverse reports against them. It is also admitted that since petitioners were engaged on temporary basis 6 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 in the year 2007, they are not covered by any of the regularization rules notified by the State Government.

13. The aspect of such regularization therefore is required to be considered in the light of judgments enunciated by Supreme Court as well as this Court.

14. In the recent judgment of Jaggo versus Union of India; 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, the aforesaid aspect has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the following manner:- "11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas—a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings.

12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the 7 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 indispensable nature of their work.

13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

16. The appellants' consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility.

17. ………………... The appellants' long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle.

19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and 8 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified.”

15. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus evident and not denied by the opposite parties that the petitioners throughout their tenure were engaged for performing essential duties which were indispensable for the day to day functioning of the office of the Commission. It is also not denied that the duties performed by petitioners were in fact the same as are required to be performed by regularly selected and appointed persons. It is thus also evident that despite being labelled as temporary employees, petitioners have performed the essential tasks on a continuous basis. As has been held in the case of Jaggo (supra), therefore in the considered opinion of this Court, their role even as temporary employees was not only essential but indistinguishable from that which is required to be performed by regular employees.

16. To that extent, the case of petitioners for regularization is clearly made out in terms of aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court.

17. The only apparent discordant note which can be noted is in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. versus Umadevi & Ors; (2006) 4 SSC 1, which is a proposition for the law that a distinction is required to be drawn between illegal and irregular appointments and it has been held that it is only in case of irregular appointments that the same can be regularized but such a benefit can not be extended to persons whose appointments are illegal in nature. 9 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025

18. In the present case, it is evident and admitted between the parties that there were no service rules governing the post on which petitioners were initially engaged on temporary basis. In the absence of any such service rules, evidently there was no prescribed procedure for such appointments. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that appointment of petitioners on temporary basis was without following any procedure since there was no procedure prescribed at all. In such circumstances, the engagement of petitioners as temporary employees with the Commission can at worst be termed to be irregular but not illegal in any manner.

19. The aforesaid aspect has been dealt with by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar (supra) in the following manner:- “9. The High Court dismissed the writ application relying on the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . But the appellants were employed basically in the year 1993; they had rendered service for three years, when they were offered the service on contract basis; it was not the case of back door entry; and there were no Rules in place for offering such kind of appointment. Thus, the appointment could not be said to be illegal and in contravention of Rules, as there were no such Rules available at the relevant point of time, when their temporary status was conferred w.e.f. 2-10-2002. The appellants were required to be appointed on regular basis as a one-time measure, as laid down in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . Since the appellants had completed 10 years of service and temporary status had been given by the respondents with retrospective effect from 2-10- 10 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 2002, we direct that the services of the appellants be regularised from the said date i.e. 2-10-2002, consequential benefits and the arrears of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today.”

20. The case of petitioners therefore may well be considered in terms of judgment rendered in the case of Umadevi (supra) as has been explained in the case of M. L. Kesari (supra) in the following manner:- “9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.

11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second ensure departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or 11 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10- 4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] ] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] as a one-time measure.”

21. The aforesaid aspect has also been considered in the case of Jaggo (supra) in the following manner:- “20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions State instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India5, it was held that held that procedural 12 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below: “6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…”

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving 13 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.”

22. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus evident that petitioners have an inherent right to be considered for regularization in terms of law enunciated by Supreme Court as indicated here-in-above prior to direct recruitment on regular basis on the aforesaid posts keeping in view their long, continuous and satisfactory services.

23. So far as the order of rejection dated

24.07.2025 is concerned, the reasoning indicated therein is clearly erroneous and is against the judgments of Supreme Court indicated here-in-above particularly since there was no service rule applicable upon the posts on which petitioners were appointed temporarily and therefore there was no 14 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 procedure required to be followed due to which the engagement of petitioners can at worst be held to be irregular but not illegal. In terms of judgments indicated here-in-above, regularization cannot be contrary to provisions of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India.

24. It is also evident that in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. versus State of Jharkhand & Ors.; (2018) 8 SCC 238, such an exercise for regularization was directed despite the fact that State came into existence only after the cut-off date.

25. Learned counsel for opposite parties no.4 & 5 has placed reliance on judgment rendered in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Versus Chandreshwar Pathak; (2014)13 SCC 232 to submit that any appointment made merely by inviting names from the employment exchange without inviting applications from all eligible candidates would not be in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has also been held that for a valid and legal appointment, mandatory compliance with constitutional requirement is a must.

26. With regard to aforesaid judgment, it is evident that the same was passed in the context that the respondent therein was temporarily appointed on the post of constable with stipulation that his service could be terminated without assigning any reason or show cause and was in fact terminated after issuing a show cause. The aforesaid case cannot be said to be a proposition for purposes of consideration for regularization. 15 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025 It is no doubt true that such a proposition would be available in case of regular appointments to be made which are required to be in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but then again in the case of petitioners, as has been held in a catena of judgments indicated here-in- above, such engagement in service may be irregular but not illegal and would therefore give a legitimate expectation petitioners consideration of their cases for regularization.

27. In view of discussion made herein above, the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A writ in the nature of Mandamus is also issued commanding the opposing parties no.1 and 5 conjointly to consider cases of petitioners for regularization in terms of judgments indicated here-in-above. Such an exercise shall be taken prior to any appointment on the basis of direct recruitment regular selection advertisement dated 04.08.2023 which shall be kept in abeyance only with regard to the posts on which petitioners have been engaged in the State Information Commission decision petitioners' regularization. In case any post remains vacant despite such consideration, the aforesaid advertisement may revive and the posts which are vacant may subsequently be filled up by such recruitment in terms of the advertisement.

28. The exercise for consideration of petitioners' cases for regularization shall be concluded expeditiously within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority. 16 WRIA No. 6293 of 2025

29. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. October 14, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench