- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 77638 OF 2013 (S-REG) BETWEEN: DHANYAKUMAR H. GOKAK S/O. HANUMANT S GOKAK AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT J.S.S. ARTS, SCIENCE AND COMMERCE DEGREE COLLEGE, GOKAK, BELGAUM DISTRICT, R/AT: NO. 189/4, PLOT NO.26, BASAVANAGAR, GOKAK- 591207, BELGAUM DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR BAJENTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560001. 2. COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE. 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DHARWAD DIST: DHARWAD. 4. GOKAK EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 GOKAK, BELGAUM DISTRICT. 5. THE PRINCIPAL JSS ARTS, SCIENCE AND COMMERCE DEGREE COLLEGE, GOKAK, BELGAUM DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTHILATHA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. M.C.MASTIHOLI, AND SRI. P.V.GUNJAL, SRI. BAHUBALI KANABARAGI, ADVOCATES FOR R4 AND R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. KA.SHI.E/ 112/ BACKLOG/ SE.VI/ 2011-12 (BHAGA-4) DATED:01/01/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-G) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO FILING UP OF ONE POST OF SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT IN THE 5TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE. II. QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. BACKLOG/2012-13 DATED 08/02/2013 (ANNEXURE-Ji IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO FILING UP ONE POST OF SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT IN THE 5TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE AND THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. BACKLOG/154/2012-13 DATED 19/02/2013 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-L). SET ASDIE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 13.03.2013/ 15.03.2013 (ANNEXURE-N) ISSUED BY THE 3rd RESPONDENT. TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER HIS CLAIM FOR REGULARIZATION TO THE POST OF SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT IN THE 5TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS THAT HE IS ENTITLED ON SUCH REGULARIZATION OF HIS SERVICES IN THE POSTS OF SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following prayer: (i) To quash the impugned order bearing no. ka.shi.E/112/ Backlog/Se.Vi/ 2011-12 (Bhaga-4) dated 01/01/2013 issued by the 2nd respondent (Annexure-G) in so far as it relates to filing up of one post of second division assistant in the 5th respondent college; ii) To quash the impugned notification bearing no. backlog/2012-13 dated 08/02/2013 (annexure-j) in so far as it relates to filing up one post of second division assistant in the 5th respondent college and the endorsement bearing no. backlog/154/2012-13 dated 19/02/2013 of the 4th respondent (annexure-l). iii) To set aside the impugned endorsement dated 13.03.2013/ 15.03.2013 (Annexure-N) issued by the 3rd respondent. iv) To direct the respondents to consider his claim for regularization to the post of second division assistant in the 5th respondent college and grant all consequential benefits that he is entitled on such regularization of his services in the posts of second division assistant. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 2. Heard the learned counsel Shri.Vijaykumar Bajentri, appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP-Smt.Keerthilatha R. Patil, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel Shri.M.C.Mastiholi and Shri.P.V.Gunjal and Shri.Bahubali Kanabargi appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 5. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The petitioner is appointed in the 5th respondent- JSS Arts, Science and Commerce Degree College, Gokak, Belagavi District as an Assistant. Initially the appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis against the sanctioned vacancy with effect from 28.02.2004. 4. The State appears to have issued certain directions on 19.12.2012 directing to fill up all the backlog vacancies in the aided institutions, in terms of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 Government Order dated 21.11.2001. In furtherance of the said direction, the second respondent directs the 4th respondent to fill up the post of the Second Division Assistant by way of direct recruitment in the 5th respondent Institute or any other Institute. In the teeth of this said direction, a notification comes to be issued seeking to fill up the post of Second Division Assistant by way of direct recruitment. It is thus the petitioner calls in question in the subject petition. This Court grants an interim order of stay directing that if the services of the petitioner is not dispensed, it shall not be dispensed, the said interim order is granted in the year 2013. The petition is pending since then, for the last 12 years and the petitioner has continued in employment. Therefore the petitioner as on today completed 22 years of service from 28.02.2004, against a sanctioned vacant post. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 petitioner then represents to the respondent institution seeking to consider his claim for regularization as he had completed more than 10 years of service against the sanctioned vacant post. This comes to be rejected by the impugned endorsement on the score that the post has to be filled up only by way of direct recruitment. It is therefore the petitioner is at the doors of this Court. As observed herein above the interim order protected the petitioner and the petitioner continues to be in employment. 5. Learned counsel Sri.Vijaykumar Bajenthri appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner’s services as a Second Division Assistant is now more than 22 years, his case is required to be considered for regularization of his services. He would further contend that the petitioner is qualified to hold the post of a Second - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 Division Assistant. Therefore, there is no warrant to dispense with the services of the petitioner or not regularize the services of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP representing the State would refute the submission taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition to contend that the petitioner even as on the date of issuance of the notification was overaged and his case cannot be considered for regularization as he is a temporary employee and a back door entrant. Learned HCGP would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of UMA DEVI quoted supra to contend that such a back door entrant cannot have a right to seek regularization of their services. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. The afore narrated facts, dates, link in the chain of events are not in dispute, the petitioner was appointed as an assistant on 01.04.2003 in the 5th respondent Institution and the vacancy arose and was pitted against a sanctioned vacant post with effect from 28.02.2004 and later occupied the post of an Assistant on the retirement of one S.B. Kurli. 9. Therefore, as on the date on which the impugned notification came about, the petitioner had completed 10 years of service. Prior to the notification itself, petitioner had represented that his case should be considered for regularization of services in the teeth of the fact that he was working against sanctioned vacant post and he was qualified to hold the post of a Second Division - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 Assistant. That having gone unheeded, is at the doors of this Court. 10. The issue now would be whether the petitioner is entitled even for a mandamus to consider his case for regularization of his services. It is not in dispute that the 5th respondent Institute is a grant-in-aid institution. The petitioner has served as an assistant, which is equivalent to a second division assistant in the 5th respondent-institute now for the last 22 years. The appointment is against a sanctioned vacant post is an admitted fact, in terms of the communications, petitioner is qualified to hold the post. 11. In an identical circumstances where the employee had completed large number of years of service and was sought to be dispensed with at the fag end of his service, the Apex Court directed regularization of the cases of the kind, who had - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 completed several years of service. The Apex Court in the case of JAGGO VS. UNION OF INDIA1 and others. “7. They urged the High Court to recognize their long and continuous service, the nature of their work, and the lack of any backdoor or illegal entry. They highlighted that they had functioned without any break, performed tasks equivalent to regular employees, and had been assigned duties essential to the regular upkeep, cleanliness, and maintenance of the respondent's offices. The High Court, after examining the Tribunal's decision and the submissions advanced, concluded that the petitioners before it were part-time workers who had not been appointed against sanctioned posts, nor had they performed a sufficient duration of full-time service to satisfy the criteria for regularization. It relied on the principle laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi3 holding that the petitioners could not claim a vested right to be absorbed or regularized without fulfilling the requisite conditions. The High Court further observed that the petitioners did not possess the minimum educational qualifications ordinarily required for regular appointments, and additionally noted that the employer had subsequently outsourced the relevant 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 housekeeping and maintenance activities. Concluding that there was no legal basis to grant the reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellants have approached this Court by way of these appeals. 8. On behalf of the appellants, the following arguments have been advanced before us: (i). Continuous and Substantive Engagement: The appellants emphasize their long, uninterrupted service spanning well over a decade—and in some instances, exceeding two decades. They argue that their duties were neither sporadic nor project-based but permanent and integral to the daily functioning of the respondent's offices. (ii). Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities— such as cleaning, dusting, gardening, and other maintenance tasks—were not casual or peripheral. Instead, they were central to ensuring a clean, orderly, and functional work environment, effectively aligning with roles typically associated with regular posts. (iii). Absence of Performance Issues: Throughout their tenure, the appellants were never issued any warning or adverse remarks. They highlight that their work was consistently satisfactory, and there was no indication from the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 respondents that their performance was not satisfactory or required improvement. (iv). Compliance with ‘Uma Devi’ Guidelines: The appellants assert that their appointments were not “illegal” but at most “irregular.” Drawing on the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi4, they submit that long-serving employees in irregular appointments—who fulfil essential, sanctioned functions—are entitled to consideration for regularization. (v). Discrimination in Regularization: The appellants point out that individuals with fewer years of service or similar engagements have been regularized. They contend that denying them the same benefit, despite their longer service and crucial role, constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. (vi). Irrelevance of Educational Qualifications: The appellants reject the respondents' reliance on formal educational requirements, noting that such criteria were never enforced earlier and that the nature of their work does not inherently demand formal schooling. They argue that retrospectively imposing such qualifications is unjustified given their proven capability over many years. (vii). Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the appellants submit that the High Court erred by focusing too rigidly on their initial terms of - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 engagement and ignoring the substantive reality of their long, integral service. They maintain that fairness, equity, and established judicial principles call for their regularization rather than abrupt termination 9. On the other hand, the following primary arguments have been advanced before us on behalf of the Respondents: (i). Nature of Engagement: The respondents maintain that the appellants were engaged purely on a part-time, contractual basis, limited to a few hours a day, and that their work was never intended to be permanent or full-time. (ii). Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert that the appellants were not appointed against any sanctioned posts. According to the respondents, without sanctioned vacancies, there can be no question of regularization or absorption into the permanent workforce. (iii). Non-Compliance with ‘Uma Devi’ Criteria: Relying heavily on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra), the respondents argue that the appellants do not meet the conditions necessary for regularization. They emphasize that merely serving a long period on a part-time or ad-hoc basis does not create a right to be regularized. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 (iv). Educational Qualifications: The respondents contend that even if the appellants were to be considered for regular appointments, they do not possess the minimum educational qualifications mandated for regular recruitment. This, in their view, disqualifies the appellants from being absorbed into regular service. (v). Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy Decision: The respondents point out that they have chosen to outsource the relevant housekeeping and maintenance work to a private agency. This, they argue, is a legitimate administrative policy decision aimed at improving efficiency and cannot be interfered with by the courts. (vi). No Fundamental Right to Regularization: Finally, the respondents underscore that no employee, merely by virtue of long-standing temporary or part-time engagement, acquires a vested right to be regularized. They maintain that the appellants' claims are devoid of any legal entitlement and that the High Court was correct in dismissing their petition. 10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 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 - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the 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. 14. The abrupt termination of the appellants' services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service. 15. Furthermore, the respondents' conduct in issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such actions not only contravened judicial directives but also underscored the respondents' unwillingness to acknowledge the appellants' rightful claims to regularization. 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. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the appellants performed—cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening—does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 engagement or the performance of their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. 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. 18. The appellants have also established that individuals with lesser tenure or comparable roles were regularized by the respondents. The counsel for the appellants had submitted a seniority list for employees working as the Multi-Tasking Staff published by the Respondent Department on 04.03.2024 wherein the following employees were a part of the staff without the required educational qualification: S. No. Name Educational Qualification Date of Continuous CWC Service Temporary or Permanent posts Category 1. Krishna s/o Lt. Khajan Singh Illiterate 26.07.1988 Permanent SC 2. Naresh Devi w/o Ld. Surendra Kumar Illiterate 29.10.1991 Permanent Gen 3. Shiv Kumar s/o Lt. Pratap Singh Illiterate 08.09.1994 Permanent SC 4. Radhe Shyam s/o Lt. Sadhu Illiterate 30.05.2012 Permanent OBC - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 Ram Maurya 5. Raju s/o Shri Banshi Lal Illiterate 12.07.1994 Permanent SC 6. Shahjad Ali s/o Naushad Ali Illiterate 01.07.2010 Permanent Gen 7. Punam w/o Lt. Raj Kumar Illiterate 21.09.2015 Permanent SC 8. Nirmala w/o Lt. Raju Illiterate 02.02.2022 Temporary SC A bare perusal of the aforementioned list shows the preferential treatment accorded to these individuals, despite their shorter service durations and no educational qualification. This exemplifies discriminatory behaviour and lack of uniformity in the respondent department's approach. Such disparity violates the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and cannot be sustained in law. 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 regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified. 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 - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 and necessary functions of the State or its 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 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 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 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” and “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…” 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment : continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment. 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long- term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 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 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 for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 12. The Apex Court clearly holds that employees who have served for long years should not be dispensed with and they are entitled to be considered for regularization of their services. In the teeth of the unequivocal fact as narrated herein above of the petitioner working as an SDA against a sanctioned vacant post and the law laid - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 down by the Apex Court, in the case of Jaggo (supra), the petitioner becomes entitled for issuance of mandamus to consider his case for regularization of services at the hands of the State. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER (a) The petition is allowed. (b) The impugned order dated 01.01.2013 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G, impugned notification dated 08.02.2013 vide Annexure-J and impugned endorsement date 13/15.03.2013 vide Annexure-N stands quashed. (c) The mandamus issues, the State to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services strictly in consonance with the Judgments of the Apex Court in the - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1070 WP No. 77638 of 2013 case of UMA DEVI supra and the case of JAGGO supra. (d) The time limit for compliance is six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/-CT-GTB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4