Madan Singh vs The State Of Haryana

2026 INSC 379 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1996 OF 2024

MADAN SINGH AND OTHERS APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2031 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2033 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2041 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2035-2037 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2099-2100 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2044 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026 (@ SLP (C) NOS. OF 2026) (@ DIARY NO. 50483 OF 2023) Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2026.04.17 16:54:10 IST Reason:

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2000 OF 2024

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 1 of 40 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1997 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1998 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2008 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1999 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2004-2006 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2001-2003 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2007 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2010-2021 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2009 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2025 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2022-2023 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2024 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2026 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2027-2028 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2029-2030 OF 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2040 OF 2024

AND

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 2 of 40 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (@ SLP (C) NO.18125 OF 2025)

JUDGMENT

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. Delay, if any, is condoned in Diary No.50483 of

2023.

2. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.

3. In this batch of appeals, we are called upon to

determine the correctness of the common judgment of the

Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court1

dated 31.05.2018 rendered in a batch of writ petitions. By

the said judgment, the policy decisions of the General

Administration Department of the State of Haryana dated

16.06.2014, 18.06.2014 and 07.07.2014 seeking to

regularise the services of various contractual/ad hoc/daily

wage employees falling in Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ have been

found to be violative of the law laid down by this Court.

Accordingly, the said Notifications have been quashed. In

1 For short, “the High Court”

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 3 of 40 some appeals, the appellants are aggrieved by the denial

of the relief of regularisation.

A. Factual Backdrop:

4. In the matter of recruitment to the posts of Assistant

Professors and various other categories of employees

falling in Group ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’, the State of Haryana

through its General Administration Department undertook

the exercise of engagement of employees on contractual or

ad hoc basis, as per the contingencies arising. In that

regard, pursuant to the judgment in the case of Secretary,

State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and

others2, Notification dated 29.07.2011 came to be issued

seeking to regularise the services of employees, who had

worked for not less than ten years as on 10.04.2006 and

were continued in service without the aid of any interim

order passed by any Tribunal or Court. In the said policy,

it was stated that such regularisation was being

undertaken as an ‘one time measure’. Thereafter, on

16.06.2014 another Notification came to be issued

proposing to regularise the services of Group ‘B’ employees

2 2006 INSC 216

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 4 of 40 working on contractual basis, who were in service as on

28.05.2014 and had been working for not less than three

years on that date. It was stated that this was being done

as an ‘one time measure’ on humanitarian ground and

that in future no such appointments would be made

against sanctioned posts.

5. Subsequently, on 18.06.2014 another Notification

with regards to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees with a similar

dateline came to be issued so as to regularise their

services.

6. Thereafter on 07.07.2014, another Notification

seeking to regularise the services of Group ‘B’ employees

who had or would complete ten years’ service on

31.12.2018 came to be issued, again by way of an ‘one time

measure’ on humanitarian ground. On the same day,

another Notification with regard to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’

employees also came to be issued with a similar dateline.

B. Judgment of the High Court:

7. The aforesaid Notifications dated 16.06.2014,

18.06.2014 and 07.07.2014 were the subject matter of

challenge in Writ Petition No.17206 of 2014 by respondent

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 5 of 40 Nos.4 and 5 in Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024. Another

batch of petitioners working on ad hoc basis sought the

relief of regularisation in their writ petitions. The High

Court considered all the writ petitions together and

proceeded to hold that the impugned Notifications were

bad in law inasmuch as they had the effect of violating the

law laid down by this Court in its various decisions in the

matter of regularisation of services of contractual/ad

hoc/daily wage employees. It held that failure to resort to

regular mode of recruitment after the judgment in Umadevi

(supra) could not be treated as an administrative exigency.

The advertisements issued had invited applications for

appointment on a contractual basis. As a result, it was

likely that candidates, who were interested in regular

recruitment but not on contractual basis may not have

applied pursuant to the same. It further held that no

special circumstances were pointed out to bypass the

regular mode of recruitment. Though it was stated in the

Notification dated 29.07.2011 that the exercise of

regularisation then undertaken was by way of an ‘one time

measure’, all the impugned Notifications referred to a

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 6 of 40 similar ‘one time measure’, which amounted to

perpetuating the illegality in the matter. There was no

basis whatsoever for such appointees to claim legitimate

expectation as the impugned policies were in breach of the

law laid down by this Court. It appeared that only for the

purpose of achieving political objectives in the light of the

fact that elections were to be held in October, 2014 that

such Notifications undertaking the exercise of

regularisation resulting in regularising back door entries

had been issued.

8. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the

Notifications dated 16.06.2014, 18.06.2014 and two

Notifications dated 07.07.2014. Further it directed that

any benefit granted to any employee would stand

withdrawn. However, noting that such appointments had

been made to undertake work in various departments, it

was directed that the appointees be allowed to continue on

the said posts for a period of six months from the date of

the judgment, during which period the State of Haryana

was directed to ensure that vacant sanctioned posts would

be advertised and the process of selection would be

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 7 of 40 completed. It also directed that the appointees be given the

benefit of age relaxation to enable them to participate in

the fresh process of recruitment in terms of its directions.

Writ petitions challenging the aforesaid notifications were

allowed while other writ petitions seeking the prayer of

regularisation in service came to be dismissed.

C. Appeals before this Court:

9. The said common judgment dated 31.05.2018 is the

subject matter of challenge in some of the appeals. The

State of Haryana through its Civil Secretariat as well as

the Department of General Administration are aggrieved

as its Notifications have been held to be bad in law. They

have filed one set of appeals. The other set of appeals have

been filed by the beneficiaries of the Notifications dated

16.06.2014, 18.06.2014 and 07.07.2014, whose services

have been regularised pursuant to such policy decisions.

Yet another batch of appeals has been preferred by

contractual/ad hoc/daily wage employees, who are

seeking the relief of regularisation of their services

pursuant to the aforesaid Notifications. In these appeals,

various Interlocutory Applications have been filed by

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 8 of 40 numerous applicants seeking permission to intervene in

the proceedings. These applicants also seek benefit of the

impugned Notifications and support the State of Haryana

in its challenge to the impugned judgment.

In the other appeals, the appellants are aggrieved by

the denial of the relief of regularisation.

On the other hand, the appeals are opposed by the

original petitioners, who had approached the High Court

for challenging the said Notifications and at whose

instance the same have been quashed. These respondents

support the impugned judgment and seek dismissal of the

appeals.

D. Appellants’ contentions:

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at

considerable length. In support of the appeals, it was

urged by the State of Haryana and the affected employees

that: -

a) The policy decisions taken in the matter of

regularisation of services of contractual/ad hoc/daily

wage employees by issuance of Notifications dated

16.06.2014, 18.06.2014 and 07.07.2014 were the

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 9 of 40 outcome of valid exercise of executive power. Referring

to Article 162 of the Constitution of India, it is submitted

that exercise of executive power by the State in view of

the acute shortage of employees was a bona fide

exercise. It was not necessary that there ought to exist

a prior law on the basis of which such executive power

could be exercised. Similarly, it was not obligatory on

the part of the State Government to make any rules

under Article 309 of the Constitution of the India before

a post was created or filled. Reference in this regard is

made to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Rai

Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others Vs. The State

of Punjab and others3.

b) The High Court committed an error in misinterpreting

the judgment in Umadevi (supra). The resort to an “one

time measure” was not a restricted exercise as held by

the High Court. Even after a lapse of a period of six

months as referred to, it was permissible for the State

Government to undertake such measures looking to the

prevailing contingencies. This position was clear in the

3 1955 INSC 27

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 10 of 40 light of the decisions in State of Karnataka and others

Vs. M L Kesari and others4 and Jaggo Vs. Union of

India and others5. Similarly, the choice of cut-off date

as 31.12.2018 that was referred to in the Notifications

dated 07.07.2014 could not be treated to be arbitrary.

The said date had a rational nexus with the object that

was sought to be achieved for mitigating hardship and

also for resolving the long pending issue of irregular

appointments.

c) All the employees, who had been appointed on

contractual/ad hoc or daily wage basis were duly

eligible and qualified for being regularised on the posts

in question. They had completed the requisite years of

continuous service prior to the cut-off date. They were

also eligible for being appointed as they possessed the

requisite academic qualifications. Their appointments

were on the basis of public advertisements and

recommendation of Selection Committees and also in

accordance with the reservation policy of the State. In

4 2010 INSC 469 5 2024 INSC 1034

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 11 of 40 other words, the appointments in question could only

be stated to be ‘irregular’ but not ‘illegal’. Consequently,

denying the relief of regularisation to such appointees

would be unjust and discriminatory. There were large

number of vacant posts remaining even after excluding

the present incumbents. Dispensing with their services

at this stage would result in great hardship to them and

would also lead to administrative chaos.

It was, thus, urged on behalf of the appellants that the

impugned judgment having failed to take into

consideration the aforesaid relevant aspects, it was liable

to be set aside. Consequentially, the services of the

concerned appointees were liable be protected.

E. Respondents’ contentions:

11. On the other hand, the original petitioners before

the High Court at whose instance the impugned

Notifications were quashed supported the judgment of the

High Court. Opposing the appeals, it was urged that: -

a) The impugned Notifications had been issued beyond the

time schedule that was referred to by the Constitution

Bench in Umadevi (supra). In the aforesaid decision, it

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 12 of 40 was made clear that services of only those employees,

who had been working for more than ten years on the

date when the decision in Umadevi (supra) was rendered

were liable to be regularised. Further, such directions

were issued to ensure that the State Departments did

not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on

contractual/ad hoc or daily wage basis. The impugned

Notifications in fact sought to grant benefit that was not

intended by Umadevi (supra).

b) As a model employer, the State ought to have

undertaken the exercise of regular recruitment on

vacant sanctioned posts. By seeking to engage the

services of contractual/ad hoc or daily wage employees,

the State Government sought to breach its own rules

and confer benefit on a handful of such appointees.

Regularisation could not be treated as a mode of

recruitment and appointments made in violation of the

recruitment rules would be violative of Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution of India.

c) The impugned Notifications could not have been issued

by resorting to the exercise of power under Article 162 Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 13 of 40 of the Constitution of India. There was no justification

whatsoever given by the State Government for not

undertaking any regular recruitment process.

Moreover, when the recruitment rules framed under

Article 309 of the Constitution of India were in force,

resort to executive powers under Article 162 for such

purpose was uncalled for.

d) The High Court rightly found that though the State

Government labelled its exercise as an “one time

measure”, it had sought to relax its rules at regular

intervals. Moreover, the Notifications dated 07.07.2014

were futuristic in operation inasmuch as ad hoc

employees completing service of ten years subsequent

to its issuance were sought to be protected.

e) It was rightly found by the High Court that the

regularisation policies resulted in qualified candidates

seeking regular recruitment being deprived of the same.

By seeking to advertise and fill in vacant posts on

contractual basis, it was likely that eligible candidates

seeking regular appointment would not have applied for

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 14 of 40 contractual appointment. Regularisation of services

now would cause prejudice to such candidates.

It was, thus, submitted that for all the aforesaid

reasons, no interference was called for with the common

judgment of the High Court holding the impugned

Notifications to be bad in law.

F. Submissions of Amicus Curiae:

12. By an order dated 08.08.2024, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,

learned Senior Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae.

He has placed on record his written submissions and has

contended that any appointment made in violation of the

constitutional scheme and statutory rules cannot be

regularised or be treated as permanent or be directed to be

treated as permanent. Such power is neither available with

the executive or with the Courts. Where rules have been

framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, no

regularisation would be permissible in exercise of

executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution of

India that would be in contravention with such rules. In

that regard, reference was made to the decision in B.N.

Nagarajan and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 15 of 40 etc.6. The financial implications as well as other economic

considerations ought to be borne in mind in this regard. It

was further submitted that regular recruitment should be

always insisted upon and an ad hoc appointment could be

made in a permanent vacancy, only in case of a

contingency. Referring to the aspect of equality in public

employment, it was submitted that an equal opportunity

to compete in employment was one of the basic features of

the Constitution of India. The principle of legitimate

expectation would be inapplicable in such case as a

temporary appointment or a contractual engagement is

not preceded by a proper selection process as recognized

by the relevant recruitment rules. Inviting attention to the

exceptions carved out in paragraph 44 of the decision in

Umadevi (supra), it was submitted that steps for

regularisation were required to be an “one time measure”

subject to fulfilment of the conditions stated therein.

Emphasising the role of the Government to act as a model

employer, it was submitted that the Government ought to

conduct itself in a fair manner without any arbitrariness. 6 1979 INSC 96

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 16 of 40 He also placed before us a chart indicating the manner in

which the decision in Umadevi (supra) has been considered

and applied/distinguished by this Court in its subsequent

decisions.

On the basis of the facts giving rise to the present

proceedings, the learned amicus curiae suggested that the

prayer for regularisation insofar as it was in violation of

the law laid down in Umadevi (supra) was liable to be

rejected. He also submitted that where contractual

appointees had been appointed by following the due

process of law and had worked for a long period, they were

entitled to the grant of equal pay for equal work. It was

suggested that a committee be set up to examine

individual cases so as to determine whether the mandate

of paragraph 44 of decision in Umadevi (supra) was

satisfied or not. Exercise of power under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India was also suggested to ensure

rendering complete justice.

G. Factual overview:

13. At the outset, it would be necessary to briefly refer

to various Notifications issued by the General

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 17 of 40 Administration Department of the State of Haryana in the

matter of regularising the services of Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’

employees working on ad hoc/contractual basis. On

29.07.2011, pursuant to the judgment in Umadevi (supra)

and as an “one time measure”, services of Group ‘B’

employees working on ad hoc/contractual or daily wage

basis on duly sanctioned vacant posts were sought to be

regularised. The criteria prescribed included having

continuously worked for not less than ten years as on

10.04.2006 and such employees continuing in service but

not under the cover of any Court orders against duly

sanctioned vacant posts. Possession of minimum

prescribed qualification was necessary coupled with

rendering of satisfactory service. Another Notification was

issued on the same day regularising the services of Group

‘C’ and ‘D’ employees engaged on ad hoc/contractual/work

charged/daily wage or part time basis. The eligibility

prescribed was similar to that prescribed in respect of

Group ‘B’ employees.

In the meanwhile, on 24.01.2014 the Haryana

Public Service Commission published an advertisement

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 18 of 40 seeking to fill in 1396 temporary posts of Assistant

Professor in the Higher Education Department. This

process of recruitment was directed to be completed by

31.12.2014 pursuant to an order dated 10.02.2014 passed

by the High Court in proceedings challenging the

engagement of Guest Lecturers on contractual basis.

14. Thereafter, on 16.06.2014 another Notification was

issued in the matter of regularising the services of Group

‘B’ employees working on contractual basis. It was stated

in the Notification that vide Circular dated 07.03.1996, the

General Administration Department had framed a

regularisation policy but it had been withdrawn on

08.12.1997. On a re-consideration of the matter, the said

policy was sought to be revived only to the extent of those

Group ‘B’ employees, who were working on ad hoc basis

and whose services could not be regularised due to

withdrawal of the earlier policy dated 07.03.1996. The

criteria prescribed was (a) having worked for not less than

three years as on 28.05.2014 and continuing in service, (b)

possessing the prescribed qualification for the post on the

date of appointment/engagement, (c) the work discharged

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 19 of 40 was to be on a sanctioned vacant post at the time of the

initial engagement and also at the time of regularisation,

(d) the reservation policy as applicable ought to be borne

in mind and (e) no relaxation in any of these requirements

was permissible.

On 18.06.2014, an earlier Notification dated

13.04.2007 issued by the General Administration

Department came to be amended so as to regularise the

left-over Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees whose services could

not be regularised under the earlier policies due to

administrative reasons. The criteria prescribed was (a)

having worked for not less than three years as on

28.05.2014 and continuing in service, (b) possessing the

prescribed qualification for the post on the date of

appointment/engagement, (c) the work discharged was to

be on a sanctioned vacant post at the time of the initial

engagement and also at the time of regularisation, (d) the

reservation policy as applicable ought to be borne in mind

and (e) no relaxation in the prescribed criteria was

permissible.

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 20 of 40

15. On 07.07.2014, yet another Notification was issued

seeking to regularise the services of Group ‘B’ employees

appointed on sanctioned posts, who had or who were to

complete ten years of service by the cut-off date of

31.12.2018. The criteria prescribed was (a) having worked

for not less than three years as on 28.05.2014 and

continuing in service, (b) possessing the prescribed

qualification for the post on the date of

appointment/engagement, (c) the work discharged was to

be on a sanctioned vacant post at the time of the initial

engagement and also at the time of regularisation, (d) the

reservation policy as applicable ought to be borne in mind

and (e) no relaxation in the prescribed criteria was

permissible. It was also stated that the policy was an “one

time measure” on humanitarian ground with a view to fill

in vacant posts. On the same day, a similar policy was

formulated for Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees based on

similar criteria.

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 21 of 40 H. Stand of the State Government in its affidavit before the High Court:

16. As noted above, the Notifications dated 16.06.2014,

18.06.2014 and the two Notifications issued on

07.07.2014 were subjected to challenge before the High

Court principally on the ground that an attempt was being

made to revive the earlier policy of regularisation dated

07.03.1996. In this context, it would be necessary to refer

to the stand taken by the State of Haryana through its

General Administration Department in its affidavit in reply

as filed in CWP No.17206 of 2014. The relevant extracts of

the said affidavit in reply are as under:

“That in reply to para 2 it is submitted that the State Government has revived policy dated 7.3.1996 and framed regularization policies dated 16.6.2014, 18.6.2014 and 7.7.2014 but in these policies it is clearly provided that the regularization should be made against sanctioned vacant posts and the candidate should possess the prescribed qualifications for the post on the date of appointment/engagement. Further, it is also clearly stated in the policies dated 16.6.2014 for group B employees, 18.6.2014 for Group C and D employees that the regularization of those employees should be made who were engaged on contact/adhoc/ daily wages etc. after adopting due procedure through Government/ Government approved agency i.e. Employment Exchange/ Departmental Selection Committee/HARTRON. Hence such type of engagements/appointments are not illegal as defined in

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 22 of 40 judgment dated 3.8.2010 of Apex Court passed in the case of M.L. Kesri.”

“It is wrong to say that the State Government in order to gain advantage in the up coming Vidhan Sabha Elections has tried to lure the general public by framing above mentioned regularization policies. It is evident that prior to upcoming Vidhan Sabha Elections, two elections i.e. earlier Vidhan Sabha Election of 2009 and Lok Sabha Elections 2014 have been held and State Government have not made any such policy at that time to attract the general public. These policies are the demand of administrative setup of the State Government to run its functions smoothly and in public interest.” “That in reply to para 3 of the writ petition it is submitted that the regular appointments on various posts and in various departments are being made by the recruiting agencies of the State Government on priority basis. Despite that there are lots of vacancies available in the departments and the work of the State Government is badly affected, thus the need for making above said regularization policies was felt. Moreover these policies have been made as one time measure and in these policies it is provided that no illegally engaged person should be regularised. Further no relaxation in eligibility criteria should be allowed according to these policies.”

“That in reply to para 11 of the writ petition it is submitted that the regularization policy dated 7th March, 1996 for Group B adhoc employees was issued but the same was withdrawn vide letter dated 08/12/1997 with effect from date of its issuance. This is a matter of record that there had been regularization of Group C and D employees during the period from 1996 to 2003 but there had been no regularization made for any Group B employees. To avoid any kind of discrimination with the Group B employees the policy was revived on 16/6/2014 and the policy was made applicable to the employees who were still working with the Government. Moreover, it is also a matter of record

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 23 of 40 that permanent posts have been kept vacant for these persons and were not included in the advertisement of PGT College Cadre Lecturers till date and thus there being no effect on the advertised posts, the petitioners averment in this regard is uncalled.”

“It is pertinent to mention that as per the information received from respondent No. 3, the regularization of the lecturers working on the contractual basis would not affect recruitment process of 1396 posts of Assistant Professor as the additional 536 sanctioned vacant posts of Assistant Professor are available with the department. As the number of advertised posts are not being affected, there is no cause for action for the petitioners to file writ petition as the main reason of the petitioners approaching this Hon'ble High Court was that the advertised posts shall get affected and reduced because of regularization of contractual employees who are holding these posts on contractual basis. Thus there being no reduction in the posts, the petitioners can not said to be aggrieved by the action of regularization and as such this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground.”

(emphasis supplied by us)

“It is further submitted that State Government is keen to appoint regular employees of Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' on regular basis. The Haryana Public Service Commission, Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Haryana Teachers Selection Board and Director, Employment have advertised various posts. The results of various categories were also declared and successful candidates have been given appointments. Apart from this, lot of vacancies are still available with the Government.”

“It is pertinent to mention that as per the information received from respondent No. 3, the regularization of the persons working on the contractual basis would not affect recruitment process of 1396 posts of Assistant Professor as the additional 536 vacant posts of Assistant Professor are available with the department.

As the number of advertised posts are not being affected,

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 24 of 40 there is no cause for action for the petitioners to file writ petition as the main reason of the petitioners approaching this Hon'ble High Court was that the advertised posts shall get affected and reduced because of regularization of contractual employees who are holding these posts on contractual basis. Thus, there being no reduction in the posts, the petitioners can not say to be aggrieved by the action of regularization.”

I. Validity of Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014:

17. A perusal of the Notification dated 16.06.2014

issued by the General Administration Department

indicates that there is a reference to the earlier

regularisation policy dated 07.03.1996 with regard to

Group ‘B’ ad hoc employees that had been subsequently

withdrawn on 08.12.1997. The State Government on a re-

consideration of the matter decided to revive the policy

dated 07.03.1996 in respect of those Group ‘B’ employees

working on ad hoc basis, whose services could not be

regularised in view of withdrawal of the said policy on

08.12.1997. By maintaining the same terms and

conditions for regularisation, such benefit was intended to

be given to ad hoc employees, who had been left out for

being regularised pursuant to the prevailing policy dated

07.03.1996. It is also relevant to note that the criteria

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 25 of 40 prescribed for seeking such benefit required possessing

the prescribed qualifications for the post in question on

the date of engagement and such engagement having been

made on a sanctioned vacant post, which position was

required to continue even at the time of regularisation. The

reservation policy prevailing from time to time was also

required to be followed. As regards the aspect of seniority

of ad hoc employees, whose services were to be

regularised, they were to be placed below in seniority to

the employees last appointed on a regular basis prior to

the date of their regularisation.

A similar Notification was issued on 18.06.2014

with regard to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, who had been

working on ad hoc/contractual/daily wage/work charged

basis, whose services could not be regularised under the

earlier regularisation policy. The criteria prescribed was

similar to that which was prescribed for Group ‘B’ ad hoc

employees. In other words, there was no relaxation

whatsoever in respect of possessing requisite

qualifications and initial engagement being on a

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 26 of 40 sanctioned post, which position was required to continue

till regularisation was to take place.

18. The object behind issuing these two Notifications for

regularising the service of Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees,

who had been working on ad hoc/contractual/daily

wage/work charged basis is evident from the Notifications

itself. The same intended to cover such employees, who

had been deprived of the benefit of the policy of

regularisation dated 07.03.1996. The criteria prescribed

was not in any manner watered down or deviated from the

criteria required to be satisfied while seeking regular

appointment. What is most relevant, in our view, is that

such engagement should have been initially made on a

sanctioned post and such engagement on the sanctioned

post ought to be continuing even on the date of

regularisation of service. This would clearly indicate that

when such engagement on ad hoc basis was initially made,

sanctioned posts were available and this position

continued for a number of years so as to enable

regularisation of services of the incumbents holding such

posts. The criteria prescribed, therefore, is very much in

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 27 of 40 tune with the criteria that would have otherwise been

prescribed had the post been advertised for regular

recruitment. We, therefore, find that the exercise of

regularising the services of ad hoc employees, who had

been left out from getting benefit of the earlier policy that

was granted to some ad hoc employees was now being

granted to the remaining ad hoc employees. It is not the

case of the original petitioners before the High Court, who

had challenged the aforesaid Notifications that all ad hoc

employees, who were eligible to have their services

regularised pursuant to the policy dated 07.03.1996, had

already been regularised and that the Notifications dated

16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were intended to facilitate the

regularisation of services of some ineligible ad hoc

employees. There is no such material placed on record

even to indicate that the beneficiaries of the regularisation

policy vide Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014

were in fact not eligible to such benefit under the policy

dated 07.03.1996. The exercise undertaken by the General

Administration Department in issuing these Notifications,

therefore, cannot be questioned on the ground of

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 28 of 40 arbitrariness, illegality or as being the outcome of a mala

fide exercise of executive power. These relevant aspects do

not appear to have been gone into by the High Court while

holding otherwise.

19. Much emphasis has been placed on the aspect that

despite the policy of regularisation being required to be

undertaken as an “one time measure” as enunciated in

paragraph 44 of the decision in Umadevi (supra), the State

Government sought to undertake this exercise of

regularisation belatedly and in a perpetual manner. In this

regard, we may usefully refer to observations of this Court

in M L Kesari (supra) wherein this aspect has been

clarified. In paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said decision, it has

been held as under:

“5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ‘regularization’ enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled:

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 29 of 40 (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

(iii) Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006).

6. The term ‘one-time measure’ has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, 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, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts.

Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 30 of 40 employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one- time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. 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 was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad- hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or 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) 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 regularization. The fact that the employer has not

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 31 of 40 undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.”

20. Thus, given the object behind issuing the

Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014, which

was primarily to grant the benefit of regularisation to those

remaining Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ ad hoc, contractual/daily

wage employees, which benefit had been granted to

similarly placed employees pursuant to Notification dated

07.03.1996, we do not find any reason whatsoever to hold

that the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014

were liable to be quashed as being arbitrary, illegally or

contrary to the law laid down by this Court in its various

decisions.

J. Validity of Notifications dated 07.07.2014:

21. On 07.07.2014, the General Administration

Department of the State Government came up with a

policy decision to regularise the services of Group ‘B’, ‘C’

and ‘D’ employees. This policy, however, was slightly

distinct from the earlier Notifications dated 16.06.2014

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 32 of 40 and 18.06.2014. Significantly, what was provided for was

that the services of ad hoc employees, who had or were to

complete ten years of service at the future date of

31.12.2018 were to be regularised even if his/her original

appointment was not made through the process of

advertisement and interview. The criteria prescribed was

(a) possessing the prescribed qualification for the post on

the date of appointment/engagement, (b) the work

discharged was to be on a sanctioned vacant post at the

time of the initial engagement and also at the time of

regularisation, (c) the reservation policy as applicable

ought to be borne in mind and (d) no relaxation in the

prescribed criteria was permissible.

In our view, the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 seek

to regularise the engagement of such ad hoc employees,

who were not initially engaged through the process of

advertisement nor after facing any interview. Such

stipulations are not found in the earlier Notifications dated

16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014, which we have held to be

valid. There is no justification placed on record by the

State of Haryana as to why services of such ad hoc

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 33 of 40 employees, who had not been engaged on the basis of any

advertisement or interview were sought to be regularised,

that too by taking into consideration a future cut-off date

of 31.12.2018. The claim of being engaged sans an

advertisement itself gives rise to doubts as regards the

manner of engagement. Absence of any record whatsoever

of the manner of engagement does not inspire any

confidence in such process. That such ad hoc employee

has not faced any interview is another relevant feature.

Further, there does not appear to be any rational basis for

fixing a future cut-off date, which is beyond four years

from the date of the Notifications. This would indicate that

even when it was possible to initiate a process of regular

recruitment after issuance of the Notifications dated

07.07.2014, by virtue of the impugned Notifications,

number of posts which could have been filled in through

regular recruitment were not liable to be advertised. The

intent was to accommodate such ad hoc employees, who

came to be engaged, albeit temporarily, in the absence of

any public advertisement or interview. We see no

justifiable reason to uphold the validity of the two

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 34 of 40 Notifications dated 07.07.2014 since they intend to

regularise the services of such ad hoc employees, who were

engaged without any advertisement and without being

interviewed. To that extent, the impugned judgment of the

High Court holding the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 to

be arbitrary and illegal does not deserve to be interfered

with.

22. We may indicate that we have not examined the

contention raised by the appellants based on Article 162

of the Constitution of India and the permissibility of

exercising executive powers in such matters. This is for the

reason that the High Court has not struck down the

Notifications on that count. It is, therefore, not necessary

for us to go into the said aspect.

K. Conclusions:

23. Having found that the Notifications dated

16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 are valid and that the High

Court was not justified in holding otherwise, the services

of the beneficiaries under these two Notifications would

stand protected. In other words, in terms of the spirit of

the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014, the

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 35 of 40 services of Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, who satisfied

the requisite criteria as prescribed are entitled to be

regularised in terms thereof.

The subsequent Notifications dated 07.07.2014 are

found to be arbitrary and illegal. Under the said

Notifications, ad hoc employees from Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’,

who were in service since 31.12.2008 were intended to be

regularised. A period of almost twelve years has elapsed

since the issuance of these two Notifications. It is the

specific stand of the State Government that even after

excluding the ad hoc employees from Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’,

who seek benefit of these two Notifications, none of the

posts advertised would be affected. Further, it is informed

that such appointees have now gained sufficient

experience and are likely to have settled in life with the

passage of time. It is true that when the challenge was

pending before the High Court, by an interim order dated

02.09.2016 it was directed that orders of regularisation if

passed would be subject to the final outcome of the said

proceedings. When the present proceedings were pending

in this Court, an interim order directing status quo to be

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 36 of 40 maintained was passed in SLP(C) No.31566 of 2018 on

26.11.2018. It is, thus, clear that these ad hoc employees

continued in service and their services are being still

utilised by the State of Haryana. In these peculiar facts

and in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to permit

such Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ ad hoc employees, who are

continuing in service and who seek benefit of the

Notifications dated 07.07.2014 be continued in service.

They shall, however, be placed at the lowest pay scale that

is admissible to the post held by them in terms of the

decision of this Court in State of Punjab and others Vs.

Jagjit Singh and others7.

24. The suggestions made by the learned amicus curiae

in his written submissions and elaborately articulated

thereafter have been referred to in paragraph 10 (supra).

The said contentions, in our view, do deserve serious

consideration. We are, however, mindful of the fact that

sitting in a Division Bench, there would be inherent

difficulties for us to effectively adjudicate on these aspects.

7 2016 INSC 993

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 37 of 40 In the peculiar facts of these proceedings and as we have,

with the aid of Article 142 of the Constitution of India,

enabled continuation of the concerned ad hoc employees

belonging to Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ under the Notifications

dated 07.07.2014, we leave open the said contentions for

being more effectively considered and dealt with in an

appropriate case.

L. Order:

25. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High

Court dated 31.05.2018 stands partly modified as under:

(a) It is held that Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and

18.06.2014 are valid and the judgment of the High

Court to the extent it holds otherwise is set aside. The

intervenors who are similarly situated and entitled to

the benefit of the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and

18.06.2014 shall also be entitled to the reliefs flowing

from such declaration, subject to verification by the

competent authority.

(b) It is declared that the Notifications dated 07.07.2014

issued with a view to regularise the services of Group

‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees with the State of Haryana are

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 38 of 40 arbitrary and illegal. They are accordingly struck

down. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, the

Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ ad hoc employees, who have

secured benefit of these Notifications and who

continue in service shall not be disturbed. They shall,

however, be placed in the lowest pay scale of the post

held by them. The intervenors, who are similarly

placed as those Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ ad hoc employees,

who are presently in service in view of the Notifications

dated 07.07.2014 shall also be entitled to the reliefs as

referred to above, subject to verification by the

competent authority.

(c) The employees, who had approached the High Court

and who were granted liberty to take steps after the

present batch of appeals were decided, are free to take

appropriate steps in accordance with this judgment.

26. Before parting, we acknowledge the efforts of

learned amicus curiae Mr. Nidhesh Gupta assisted by

learned counsel Ms. Japneet Kaur, Ms. Jhanvi Dubey, Mr.

Ashok Mathur, Ms. Vriti Gujral, Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, and

Mr. Jimut Mohopatra in placing before us all relevant

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 39 of 40 material along with his valuable suggestions that assisted

us in deciding this batch of appeals. We also place on

record the effective contribution of all learned counsel, who

assisted the Court in disseminating the complex facts

involved. Their meaningful assistance made our task

easier.

27. All the Civil Appeals are accordingly disposed of in

aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Pending

interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.

…..….………………………………………..J. [ PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA ]

………………….…..………………………..J. [ ATUL S. CHANDURKAR ]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 16, 2026.

Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 Page 40 of 40 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CONMT. PET. (C) NO.140 OF 2025 IN I.A. NO.63235 OF 2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1998 OF 2024

PHOOL PRAKASH AND OTHERS PETITIONERS

VERSUS

TVSN PRASAD AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS/ CONTEMNORS

WITH

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.59 OF 2025

AND

SLP (C) NOS.26600-26605 OF 2025

ORDER

These proceedings are de-tagged. To be listed in the regular

course in tune with the order dated 04.11.2025.

…..….………………………………………..J. [ PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA ]

………………….…..………………………..J. [ ATUL S. CHANDURKAR ]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 16, 2026.