2025:HHC:37155 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7725 of 2026 Reserved on 13.07.2026 Decided on: 31.07.2026 Uploaded on 31.07.2026. Ms. Disha Kumari … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Ms.Shikha Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 25-09-2019 along with all consequential benefits. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay arrears of salary and other financial benefits to the petitioner as per the regular pay scale from 25-09-2019.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that vide advertisement dated 25.08.2017 (Annexure P-1), respondent No.2 invited applications for the post of Project Manager in the e-National Agricultural Market (e-NAM) on contract basis. The petitioner being eligible to apply for the said post in terms of the advertisement, submitted her application for consideration. She appeared before the Expert Committee which was constituted for selecting the candidates 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 on 25.09.2017 along with 11 other applicants. On the basis of her performance before the Selection Committee, the petitioner was offered appointment of e-NAM Project Manager on contract basis vide Annexure P-3, i.e. order dated 25.09.2017. According to the petitioner, she joined the service as such on contract basis and since then is performing her duties diligently without any complaint. It is further her case that after completion of two years on contract basis, she approached the Authorities for regularization of her services, but no response was received from the respondents. The petitioner has also filed a representation on 26.02.2021, requesting for her regularization. Vide Annexure P-6 dated 02.07.2024, a communication was sent by Secretary, Agriculture to the Government of Himachal Pradesh-cum-Chairman HPSAMB, Member Service Committee to the Managing Director of Himachal Pradesh State Agriculture Marketing Board on the subject ‘Regularization of contractual services of Smt. Disha Gupta, Project Manager (E-NAM) in HP State Agricultural Marketing Board’, in which, it was stated that the matter with reference to letter dated 24.06.2024 was examined and it was observed therein that the regularization orders in respect of the petitioner, who was the Project Manager, may be issued with prospective effect immediately and besides this, the process of framing the Recruitment & Promotion Rules (R&P Rules) may also be initiated. As even after this communication, nothing was being done by the Department, hence the petitioner has approached 3 this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed against the post of Project Manager after undergoing a selection process, in which, other eligible persons also participated. She submitted that engagement of the petitioner was not through a back door entry, but by way of an open selection process. The petitioner was appointed against the post as she fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria and was recommended for selection by the Expert Committee/Selection Committee. Learned counsel referred to Annexure P-4, appended with the petition and submitted that perusal thereof would demonstrate as to what was the reason for the sanction of the post of Project Manager in the e- NAM Project, which led to the appointment of the petitioner against the said post. She submitted that the petitioner was engaged in the Market Board, which is wholly owned and controlled by the State Government. She submitted that the Policies of the State Government with regard to the regularization of the services of persons engaged on contract basis are applicable and binding upon the said respondent also. In this backdrop, the act of the Board of not regularizing the services of the petitioner, more so in light of communication (Annexure P-6), is totally unsustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Board, by referring to its reply, submitted that the engagement of the petitioner against the post of Project Manager was on contract basis, 4 and the respondents were honouring the terms and conditions, on the basis of which she was engaged. He submitted that no assurance of regularization of service was ever given to the petitioner, and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that non-regularization of her services was arbitrary, is totally bad in law. Learned Counsel also drew the attention of the Court to the documents appended with the reply filed by the respondent-Board and submitted that the Service Committee of respondent No. 2, in its meeting held on 20.03.2024 with regard to the regularization of the contractual service of Ms. Disha Kumari, decided to refer the matter to the Finance Department for detailed examination as per Rules by the Administrative Department. He submitted that thereafter, in terms of Annexure R-5, a communication was received from Principal Secretary (Finance) to Secretary (Agriculture) and respondent No. 2 to the effect that said parties were called upon to take further necessary action in the matter as per decision taken in the meeting of the Service Committee after obtaining the approval of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 2 under intimation to the Finance Department. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that during the course of hearing of this petition, in light of certain directions which were passed by the Court, the meeting of the Service Committee of respondent No. 2 was convened on 28.01.2026, in which the Committee resolved that the same was guided by the 5 settled constitutional position that regularization is not and cannot be made a mode of recruitment and that an illegality, namely, an appointment made de hors a sanctioned post, statutory Rules, or constitutional scheme, cannot be regularized. He submitted that the Committee had also taken note of the fact that mere continuation of a contractual or temporary employee, including continuation under interim orders, does not create any enforceable right of absorption or regularization. He submitted that the Committee also took note that the Statutory Policy underlying the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 confines service rule benefits to persons appointed on a regular basis with an entitlement, if any, flowing from the date of regularization, and further provides that service benefits already extended for service other than regular service shall stand withdrawn. He also submitted that in light of the stand so taken by respondent No. 2, the petitioner was not entitled for any regularization of her services. 6. In rejoinder, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had been performing her duties diligently since the year 2017, when she was appointed against the post in question and the pleas being raised for denying regularization to the petitioner were not justified in law. She submitted that the respondents cannot take the stand that the petitioner had not been appointed as per service regulations, for the reason that it is not as if 6 the petitioner was appointed through a back-door route. She submitted that the petitioner responded to a process of recruitment initiated by respondent No. 2 and therefore, the contention of the Department that the petitioner had no right of regularization was not sustainable. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as other documents on record. 8. The facts, as have been mentioned hereinabove, regarding engagement of the petitioner and further the respective stand of the respondents denying regularization to the petitioner, are not in dispute. It is a matter of record that the petitioner herein was appointed against the post of Project Manager through a process initiated by respondent No.2 and not through back-door entry. That is to say, it is not as if one fine day, without any advertisement, or without facing any Selection Committee, the petitioner was appointed against the post of Project Manager. 9. The documents appended with the petition demonstrate that the Managing Director of respondent No. 2 had initiated the process justifying the post of Project Manager in the e-NAM project and pursuant thereto, an advertisement was issued by respondent No. 2 for appointment of a Project Manager, for which 12 candidates applied. The candidates were subjected to an interview before a Selection Committee and it was on the recommendations of the said 7 Selection Committee, that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2017 against the post in issue, on a contract basis. 10. Therefore, the contents of the minutes of meeting of respondent No. 2 dated 30.06.2006 that the appointment of the petitioner was an illegal appointment made de hors a sanctioned post, statutory rules, or constitutional scheme, are perverse observations and are not sustainable in law. The petitioner was appointed on the recommendations of a Selection Committee constituted by respondent No. 2. Therefore, in the light of this fact, it does not behove respondent No. 2 to term the appointment of the petitioner to be illegal, or an appointment de hors a sanctioned post, statutory rules, or constitutional scheme. 11. As far as the issue of the Statutory Policy or Statutory Scheme of Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Condition of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, referred to in the said minutes of the Board by respondent No. 2 is concerned, the observations made on the basis of the coming into force of this Act, lose their significance, for the reason that this Act has already been declared as ultra vires to the Constitution of India by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3361 of 2025, titled Devinder Kumar & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another and connected matters, decided on 25.04.2026. Further, it is a matter of record that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State against the said judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Devinder 8 Kumar’s case (supra) has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The petitioner having been appointed through a transparent process against the post of Project Manager on contract basis and the factum of her serving on contract basis for the last 9 years demonstrates that not only the appointment of the petitioner was by following a process initiated for filling-up the post by respondent No. 2 itself, but also that the post has the element of permanency attached to it. 13. In fact, during the pendency of the present writ petition, this Court had passed the following orders on 16.12.2025 and 02.01.2026:- “ Order dated 16.12.2025 Careful perusal of communication dated 2nd July, 2024, issued under the signatures of Joint Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, reveals that direction already stands issued to the Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh Agriculture Marketing Board, Khalini, Shimla, to issue regularization orders in respect of Smt. Disha Gupta, Project Manager with prospective effect, but fact remains that till date, neither regularization order has been issued nor R&P Rules for the post in question have been finalized. Though, reply filed by the respondents suggests that the matter is still pending before Finance Department, but once necessary direction already stands issued by the competent authority to Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh Agriculture Marketing Board to regularize the 9 services of the petitioner herein, it is not understood that why and for what reason regularization order of the petitioner has been not issued till date. Learned counsel representing respondent No.2 prays for and is granted ten days’ time to have instructions. In case petitioner is otherwise eligible to be granted regularization in terms of letter dated 2nd July, 2024, pendency of the present petition shall not be bar for the respondents to do the needful, rather order, if any, passed in that regard shall be produced before this Court on the next date of hearing, enabling this Court to pass appropriate order in the instant proceedings. List on 02.01.2026.” “Order dated 02.01.2026 “Pursuant to order dated 16.12.2025, Mr. Sanjay Joshi, Deputy Director, Himachal Pradesh State Agriculture Marketing Board has come present and placed on record communication dated 26.12.2025 addressed to the Secretary(Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh by the Managing Director of the respondent- Corporation, praying therein to convene the meeting of the Service Committee to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. Though, it has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that number of times meeting of Service Committee has been convened, but for no justifiable reason, case of the petitioner has been considered. Be that as it may, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the meeting of Service Committee be convened at the earliest, preferably within a period of four weeks and thereafter, outcome of the same be placed before this Court on or before the next date of hearing. List 10 on 25.03.2026.” A perusal of the said orders also demonstrates that this Court had categorically observed in these orders that there was no justifiable reason as to why the services of the petitioner were not being regularized. 14. The Service Committee of the respondent-Board, which met on 26.12.2025, decided as under:- “The Member Secretary extended gratitude to the Chairman and other Members for convening the meeting of the Service Committee. With the permission of the Chair, the agenda item arising out of the orders dated 16.12.2025 and 02.01.2026 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 7725 of 2025, titled Disha Kumari Versus State of H.P. and others, was taken up for consideration. The Service Committee perused the aforesaid orders and proceeded to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Court. The petitioner was engaged as Project Manager (e-NAM) on contract basis /co-terminus with the project, pursuant to a selection process conducted in September, 2017, and joined on 26.09.2017. A formal service contract was executed between the petitioner and the Board's authority. The Committee notes that the position of Project Manager (e-NAM) was a project-linked, temporary contractual arrangement, and was not encadred in the Board's regular establishment/sanctioned strength under the Board's statutory Service Regulations, nor were Recruitment & Promotion Rules notified for this post under the said Regulations. Consequently, the post did 11 not exist as a regular cadre post to be filled/held under statutory R&P Rules. The Resident Audit Scheme (Local Audit Department) had raised objections regarding the engagement, inter-alia on the ground that complete factual position was not placed before the competent forum and also questioning the justification/funding aspects of continuing such a position from Board resources. The Board of Members (BoM) in its meeting held on 09.01.2019 decided to discontinue the contractual engagement. The petitioner challenged the same before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal and obtained interim protection. After abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the Hon'ble High Court and registered as CWPOA No. 6306 of 2020, and the petitioner continued on the strength of interim orders. Subsequently, on representation dated 26.02.2021, the BoM decided to review its earlier decision and to continue/reinstate the petitioner's contract subject to withdrawal of the court case; the petitioner withdrew the case and the contract was renewed/extended from time to time on contractual terms (including annual increment as admissible in contract). The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking regularisation (including retrospective regularisation) of her contractual service by invoking the Government policy for regularisation of contractual appointees as stated to have been adopted by the Board. The Committee notes that, under the Board's (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Regulations, 2006, the Regulations do not apply to "any person whose terms and conditions of engagement have 12 been settled by or under an agreement or contract entered into with him". In the present case, the petitioner's engagement being contractual/project-tied, her service conditions are governed by the executed contract and not by regular cadre/service-rule incidents under the statutory Regulations. The Committee is guided by the settled constitutional position that regularisation is not, and cannot be, a mode of recruitment, and that an illegality-namely an appointment made dehors a sanctioned post, statutory rules, or the constitutional scheme-cannot be regularised. The Committee further notes the settled principle that mere continuation of a contractual or temporary employee, including continuation under interim orders (often described as "litigious employment"), does not create any enforceable right to absorption or regularisation. The Committee also notes that the statutory policy underlying the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 (Act No. 23 of 2025) confines service-rule benefits to persons appointed on regular basis, with entitlement (if any) flowing from the date of regularisation, and further provides that service benefits already extended for service "other than regular service" shall stand withdrawn. Therefore, even independently of the question of regularisation, no service benefit akin to that of a regular employee can be extended to the petitioner. Conferment of regular-service benefits (pay-scale as a regular employee, regular increments, seniority, promotional avenues, leave/service-rule benefits and other allied benefits) upon a contractual/project-tied 13 engagement would amount to granting regular status by indirect means, which is impermissible. The petitioner's entitlement, if any, must remain confined to the contractual terms applicable to such project-tied engagement. The Committee further records that Article 14 does not envisage "negative equality" and there is no equality in illegality. If any benefit/regularisation has been wrongly extended to any other person (inadvertently or otherwise), the same cannot be cited as a precedent or as a ground to claim similar relief; a wrong/irregular benefit in one case cannot be made the foundation to direct repetition of illegality. Accordingly, any plea of parity/comparative treatment based on alleged regularisation or service benefits granted to others is rejected. The Committee finds that the petitioner was engaged against a project-tied contractual arrangement, and not against a sanctioned cadre post in the Board's regular establishment; further, no notified R&P Rules exist for the post of Project Manager (e-NAM) under the Board's statutory Regulations and the position is not encadred in the sanctioned strength (Schedule-II). In view of the statutory exclusion in the Board's Regulations for engagements governed by agreement/contract, the Committee holds that the petitioner cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right. Granting regularisation (particularly with retrospective effect) would amount to conferring regular status dehors (i) existence of a sanctioned cadre post, and (ii) notified R&P Rules and prescribed recruitment channel, which is impermissible in law; and mere continuation due to interim protection cannot mature into a legal right for 14 absorption/regularisation ("litigious employment"). The Committee further observes that any decision creating/encadring a post or framing R&P Rules is a matter requiring competent statutory process/policy approval and cannot be achieved indirectly through regularisation of a contractual/project engagement. The Board, being a statutory body, is governed by its own statutory Regulations and sanctioned strength. Any executive policy of contractual regularisation, even if stated to be adopted by the Board, cannot operate to create/encadre a post, bypass statutory recruitment norms, or override the express exclusion contained in the Board's Regulations for contractual engagements. Service status cannot be conferred by policy where the statutory framework does not provide for it. The Committee is also guided by the constitutional discipline under Articles 14 and 16 that public employment must ordinarily be through a transparent, rule-based process giving equal opportunity to all eligible persons; conversion of a contractual/project engagement into regular service would defeat this constitutional scheme and deny opportunity to similarly situated aspirants. Repeated contractual renewals, or continuation pursuant to interim protection, do not create any legitimate expectation or vested right to be absorbed/regularised, nor can estoppel/legitimate expectation be invoked to compel an act contrary to statute, sanctioned strength, or the constitutional scheme. The Committee also records that it has no statutory competence to create or encadre posts, amend the sanctioned strength, or notify R&P Rules; such actions require approval through the competent 15 statutory/financial process. Any regularisation/extension of regular-service benefits would create recurring financial liability on public funds without a sanctioned cadre post and without a notified recruitment framework, which is impermissible and contrary to principles of financial propriety and statutory control over establishment expenditure. In compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Court, the Committee has undertaken a reasoned consideration of the petitioner's claim with reference to the record, the Board's statutory Regulations, cadre position/sanctioned strength and the governing legal principles, and records its decision accordingly. Accordingly, the Service Committee, after due consideration of the record, statutory provisions and settled law, expresses its inability to accede to the request for regularisation (including retrospective regularisation) of the petitioner as Project Manager (e-NAM) in the establishment of the Board. The Member Secretary is directed to place the outcome before the Hon'ble High Court on or before the next date of hearing.” What is mentioned in these minutes is completely unacceptable. The contents of the minutes have smacks of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. Having itself appointed the petitioner through an open selection process, it is nothing but an attempt on the part of the Board to evade its responsibility of regularizing the services of the petitioner, which is totally unacceptable and unjustifiable. 15. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to Annexure 16 P-6, appended with the writ petition by the petitioner, which reads as under:- “I am directed to refer to your letter No. HMB(B)4- 190/2017-1266 dated 14-06-2024 on the subject cited above and to say that the matter has en examined in this department and reiterate its earlier advise conveyed to you vide this department letter of even number dated 16- 03-2024 & 22-06-2024. Accordingly, the regularization orders in respect of Smt. Disha Gupta, Project Manager may be issued with prospective effect immediately. Besides, the process for framing the R&P Rules may be initiated. Thereafter, place the matter for ex-cost-facto approval of the Board as and when the meeting held. You are, therefore, requested to take further necessary action in the matter accordingly, under intimation to this department.” 16. It is apparent and evident from the perusal of this document that even Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh-cum-Chairman of respondent No. 2 had called upon the Managing Director of respondent No. 2 to regularize the services of the petitioner with prospective effect immediately. Despite these directions having been issued by the Chairman, respondent No. 2 has not regularized the services of the petitioner till date, which act of the respondent-Board is completely arbitrary, discriminatory and not sustainable in the eyes of law. This is more so in light of the fact that the State Government, from time to time, is coming up with the Policies of regularization of contract employees 17 and as observed hereinabove also, these Policies are applicable to the respondent-Board also. 17. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to certain judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which have been recently passed on the issue of regularization of daily-wagers as also contract employees. 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo Versus Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, has been pleased to hold as under:- “………...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 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 18 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 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. 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, 19 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 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.” In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is imperative for Government Departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on 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’s 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. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private 20 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. 19. In Dharam Singh & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Anr., 2025 SCC Online SC 1735 (2025 INSC 998), Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:- “……...17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad- hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were 21 considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” 20. In Bhola Nath Versus the State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2026 SCC Online SC 129 (2026 INSC 99), Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:- “13. Another facet requiring consideration in the case of contractual employees, such as the present appellants, is the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Where employees have continued to discharge their duties on contractual posts for a considerable length of time, as in the present case, it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises that the State would, at some stage, recognize their long and continuous service. It is in this belief, bolstered by repeated extensions granted by the Executive, that such employees continue in service and refrain from seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding the contractual nature of their engagement. At this juncture, it is thus apposite to advert to the principles governing the doctrine of legitimate expectation as enunciated by this Court in Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, (2024) 16 SCC 598 wherein it was held as follows: - "63. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings forth the following features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation: 63.1. First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation: 22 63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise either from an express or implied promise; or a consistent past practice or custom followed by an authority in its dealings; … 63.5. Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law, that is. a plea of legitimate action can be taken only when a public authority breaches a promise or deviates from a consistent past practice, without any reasonable basis. 64. The aforesaid features, although not exhaustive in nature, are sufficient to help us in deciding the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation to the facts of the case at hand. It is clear that legitimate expectation. jurisprudentially, was a device created in order to maintain a check on arbitrariness in State action. It does not extend to and cannot govern the operation of contracts between private parties, wherein the doctrine of promissory estoppel holds the field." It is, therefore, not difficult to comprehend the expectation with which such contractual employees continue in the service of the State. The repeated conduct of the employer-State in expressing confidence in their performance and consistently granting monetary upgrades & tenure extensions reasonably nurtures an expectation that their long and continuous service would receive further recognition. 13.1. Another Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 cautioned that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot ordinarily be extended to persons whose appointments are 23 temporary, casual or contractual in nature. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows: - "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the reievant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary. contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post." However, this Court in Umadevi (supra) clarified that the bar against invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies only to those temporary, contractual or casual employees whose engagement was not preceded by a proper selection process in accordance with the extant rules. Consequently, where such engagement is made after following a due and lawful selection procedure, there is no absolute bar in law preventing such employees from invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation. 24 Limits on Perpetual Contractual Engagements: 13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the end of the year 2022 that the respondents communicated that no further extension of the appellants' engagement was likely to be granted. 13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is not only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear derogation of the equality principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent-State initially engaged the appellants in their youth to discharge public duties and functions. Having rendered long and dedicated service, the appellants cannot now be left to fend for themselves, particularly when the employment opportunities that may have been available to them a decade ago are no longer accessible owing to age constraints. 13.4. We are unable to discern any rational basis for the respondent-State's decision to discontinue the appellants after nearly ten years of continuous service. We are conscious that the symbiotic-relationship between the appellants and the respondent-State was mutually beneficial, the State derived the advantage of the appellants' experience and institutional familiarity, while the appellants remained in public service. In such circumstances, any departure from a long-standing practice of renewal, particularly one that frustrates the legitimate expectation of the employees, ought to be supported by cogent reasons recorded in a speaking order. 25 13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over several years and has been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification advanced by the respondents as the obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or regular. 13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of "part-time", "contractual" or "temporary" in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 this Court underscored that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization. 13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC Online SC 221 and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327 this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are merely "irregular", the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. 26 13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. 2025 SCC Online SC 1735, this Court strongly deprecated the culture of "ad-hocism" adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices. 13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason. 13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State's contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants' engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants' services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, bruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the 27 ate to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of me Constitution. 21. Therefore, in light of the above discussions and also the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and further in the light of communication Annexure P-6, issued by the Chairman of respondent No. 2, this writ petition is allowed. The act of the respondent-Board of not regularizing the services of the petitioner is declared to be bad in law and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Project Manager w.e.f. 02.07.2024, i.e. the date when the Chairman of respondent No. 2 directed the regularization her services. The regularization of the services of the petitioner from the date mentioned hereinabove shall be with all consequential benefits, including monetary and seniority, 22. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 31, 2026 (Rishi)