Temporary Appointment Confers No Right To Permanent Absorption: Madras High Court Rejects Regularisation Plea Of 58 Temporary Court Staff
The Bench noted that judicial review under Article 226 Constitution of India cannot direct regularisation in violation of recruitment rules, following constitution bench ruling in Uma Devi.
The Madras High Court has held that mere temporary appointments made under specific service rules would not confer any right to claim permanent absorption or regularisation, dismissing a batch of 58 writ petitions filed by temporary Steno-Typists, Typists, and Junior Assistants serving in the District Judiciary across Tamil Nadu seeking reinstatement and regularisation of their services.
The Court further held that its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to direct an employer to regularise the services of a temporary employee in violation of the recruitment rules in force, as such a power would fall beyond the realm of judicial review, applying the binding principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice N. Senthilkumar observed, “…mere temporary appointments made under a specific service rules, in the present case, Rule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, would not confer any right to claim permanent absorption / regularisation. Having accepted the terms and conditions of temporary service, the writ petitioners cannot turn around and claim permanency, without undergoing the regular process of selection in order to provide equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates, aspiring and longing to secure public employments”.
“…this Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct an employer to regularise the services of a temporary employee in violation of the recruitment rules in force. Such a power would fall beyond the realm of the power of the judicial review”, the Bench further said.
Advocate A. Sakthivel appeared for the various petitioner and Advocate M. Palanimuthu appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners, temporary Steno-Typists, Typists, and Junior Assistants, had been appointed under Rule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, a provision permitting temporary appointments to meet administrative exigencies, which expressly stipulates that such appointees acquire no preferential claim to future appointment and may be terminated at any time without notice or reason.
The petitioners, some of whom had served for ten to fifteen years across broken spells, sought regularisation in sanctioned posts, relying on recent Supreme Court decisions including Jaggo v. Union of India and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam. The State and the Registrar General of the High Court opposed the petitions, relying on a Division Bench ruling of the Madurai Bench in E. Jailatha @ Sivagami, and pointing to the express terms of Rule 16(e)(i) accepted by the petitioners at the time of appointment.
Examining the constitutional scheme for public appointments, the Court held that the principles settled in Uma Devi are binding across the country, and that any judgment running counter to them cannot be followed as precedent to grant regularisation in other cases.
It held that back-door appointments made without following recruitment rules, merit assessment, or the rule of reservation violate the equality clause under Articles 14 and 16, and relied on State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal for the proposition that mere continuation in service, even for long years, does not confer a right to regularisation absent appointment against a sanctioned post through open competitive selection.
The Court also accepted the Registrar General's affidavit explaining that temporary appointments were necessitated by delays on the part of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in sponsoring candidates and by continuously arising vacancies, and that no sanctioned posts were available to absorb all temporary employees.
However, the Court held that such temporary appointments cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely, and directed the Judicial Department to undertake regular recruitment on an annual basis to fill sanctioned posts. It directed that petitioners presently working as temporary staff, as well as those already terminated, be permitted to participate in future recruitment processes if otherwise eligible, with age relaxation where necessary, though essential educational qualifications could not be dispensed with.
Accordingly, all 58 writ petitions were disposed of with these directions, without any order as to costs.
Cause Title: R. Bharathi and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:2999)
Appearances:
Petitioners: A. Sakthivel, R. Ezhilarasan, and S. Arokiamaniraj, Advocates.
Respondents: Dr. R. Gouri, Government Counsel, B. Poongkhulali, V. Balamurugan, J. Chandra Sundar Sushikumar, P. Kannan Kumar, M. Fakkir Mohideen, N.K. Kanthimathi, E. Chandrasekaran, and S. Giridharan, Standing Counsel.