Regularisation After Umadevi: Validity of “Left-Over” Regularisation Policies, Invalidity of Futuristic Regularisation, and Article 142 Continuance with Minimum Pay

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court in Madan Singh and Others v. State of Haryana (2026 INSC 379, decided on 16-04-2026) considered a large batch of civil appeals arising from a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 31.05.2018. The High Court had quashed Haryana Government notifications dated 16.06.2014, 18.06.2014 and 07.07.2014 which aimed to regularise various Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees engaged on contractual/ad hoc/daily-wage arrangements.

The principal legal tension was familiar in Indian service law: the constitutional requirement of equal opportunity in public employment (Articles 14 and 16) versus long continuance of irregular engagements and the State’s attempt to convert them into regular service. The decision required the Court to reconcile:

• the constitutional discipline emphasised in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others,
• the clarification of “one-time measure” in State of Karnataka and others v. M L Kesari and others, and
• equitable relief for employees continued for years during litigation, including the “minimum pay” approach from State Of Punjab And Others v. Jagjit Singh And Others.

The appeals were filed by (i) the State of Haryana (challenging the High Court’s quashing), (ii) beneficiaries of the 2014 policies (seeking restoration/protection), and (iii) employees seeking regularisation. Original writ petitioners supported the High Court’s decision and opposed regularisation.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court partly modified the High Court’s judgment:

• Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were upheld as valid. The High Court was found unjustified in striking them down. Beneficiaries (and similarly situated intervenors) are entitled to regularisation subject to verification.
• Notifications dated 07.07.2014 were declared arbitrary and illegal and were struck down. The Court held they improperly contemplated regularisation of ad hoc employees engaged without advertisement or interview, and used a future cut-off date (31.12.2018) without rational basis.
• Equitable protection under Article 142: Despite striking down the 07.07.2014 policies, the Court directed that employees who had already obtained benefit and were continuing in service should not be disturbed, but must be placed at the lowest pay scale admissible to the post, in terms of State Of Punjab And Others v. Jagjit Singh And Others.

Notably, the Court did not decide the broader constitutional question about using executive power under Article 162 to issue such policies in the presence of recruitment rules under Article 309, observing that the High Court had not struck down the notifications on that ground.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited (and How They Shaped the Outcome)

(a) Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others

Umadevi is the foundational authority restraining regularisation as a “mode of recruitment” and reaffirming that public employment must ordinarily be through constitutionally compliant selection processes. It carved out a limited window for considering regularisation of certain long-serving employees as a “one time measure”, subject to strict conditions (long service, sanctioned posts, qualifications, and absence of court protection).

In the present case, both sides invoked Umadevi:

• The writ petitioners argued Haryana’s 2014 policies were beyond the temporal and conceptual limits of Umadevi and perpetuated illegality.
• The State and employees argued the policies addressed continuing administrative realities and fit within the clarified meaning of “one-time measure”.

The Court’s approach shows a two-track application of Umadevi: it accepted that some regularisation efforts can be legitimate (16/18 June) if they essentially complete a left-over, eligibility-based exercise, but rejected “futuristic” regularisation (07 July) that dilutes entry-level constitutional safeguards.

(b) State of Karnataka and others v. M L Kesari and others

M L Kesari was decisive in interpreting the phrase “one-time measure”. The Supreme Court quoted Kesari to clarify that “one-time” does not rigidly end after six months from Umadevi; it can include continuation/completion of the exercise where eligible employees were excluded due to pending cases or oversight.

This reasoning directly supported upholding the 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 notifications, because the Court characterised them as an attempt to extend regularisation to “left-over” employees who were similarly situated but had missed earlier regularisation. The Court emphasised that the June notifications retained stringent criteria (sanctioned posts, qualifications, reservation adherence, no relaxation), thereby aligning with the “irregular but not illegal” framework discussed in Kesari.

(c) State Of Punjab And Others v. Jagjit Singh And Others

The Court used Jagjit Singh not to regularise employment, but to craft an equitable wage consequence: employees protected from displacement under Article 142 (despite the invalidity of the 07.07.2014 notifications) would be placed at the lowest pay scale admissible to the post.

This is significant because it separates:

• status (no regularisation under an illegal policy), from
• continuance and pay protection (a calibrated, minimum-scale approach while continuing to utilise their services).

(d) Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others v. The State of Punjab and others

This Constitution Bench decision was cited by the appellants to argue that executive power under Article 162 can be exercised even absent prior legislation, and that rules under Article 309 are not a precondition to creating/filling posts. However, the Supreme Court in the present case expressly declined to examine the Article 162 contention, because the High Court had not struck down the notifications on that ground.

(e) B.N. Nagarajan and others v. State of Karnataka and others etc.

The amicus relied on B.N. Nagarajan to stress the broader principle that appointments made in violation of constitutional scheme/statutory rules cannot be regularised by executive fiat or even by courts, and that Article 162 cannot be used to contravene rules under Article 309. The Court noted the amicus submissions but left those larger questions open for consideration in an appropriate case, given the constraints of a Division Bench and the fact-specific Article 142 resolution adopted.

(f) JAGGO v. UNION OF INDIA and others

Jaggo was cited by appellants to suggest that “one-time measure” regularisation may be permissible beyond the immediate Umadevi timeframe. While the judgment does not explicitly build a separate doctrinal step from Jaggo, its acceptance of a non-mechanical reading of “one-time measure” is consistent with this line of argument, though the Court ultimately anchored the doctrinal clarification in M L Kesari.

---

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(A) Why the Court upheld the 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 notifications

The Court treated these notifications as remedial and parity-based measures: they were intended to regularise those Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees who were left out when an earlier regularisation policy (07.03.1996) was withdrawn (08.12.1997), even though similarly placed employees had already received the benefit earlier.

Key features that made these notifications legally acceptable in the Court’s analysis:

• Sanctioned post requirement: engagement must have been against a duly sanctioned vacant post at initial engagement and at regularisation.
• Qualification requirement: employee must possess the prescribed qualification on the date of engagement.
• Reservation compliance: regularisation must account for reservation policy.
• No relaxation: explicit prohibition on relaxing eligibility criteria.
• Absence of “pick and choose” evidence: the Court noted there was no record showing beneficiaries were ineligible or that all eligible persons had already been covered.

On this footing, the Court held the High Court did not sufficiently examine the object and structure of the June notifications, and that branding them as perpetuating illegality was unjustified.

(B) Why the Court struck down the 07.07.2014 notifications

The Court found the July notifications suffered from constitutional and administrative vice because they contemplated regularisation of ad hoc employees who:

• were not engaged through advertisement, and
• had not faced interview, and
• would be regularised using a future cut-off date (31.12.2018), i.e., a mechanism that could prevent regular recruitment for years and effectively reserve public posts for a cohort that entered outside an open competitive process.

The Court viewed the absence of advertisement/interview as a red flag undermining confidence in the recruitment channel and as incompatible with the equality norm. The future cut-off date was found to lack a rational basis and to indicate an intent to “accommodate” ad hoc employees rather than to cure a past left-over regularisation gap.

(C) The Article 142 solution: striking down the policy but protecting incumbents

After holding the 07.07.2014 notifications illegal, the Court confronted a practical reality: nearly twelve years had elapsed; employees had continued due to interim protections; the State continued to use their services; and disruption could be harsh and administratively destabilising.

The Court therefore used Article 142 to craft “complete justice”:

• incumbents who had already obtained benefit and were continuing in service would not be disturbed,
• but they would be placed in the lowest pay scale of the post (invoking State Of Punjab And Others v. Jagjit Singh And Others).

This is a carefully balanced remedial technique: it refuses to legitimise the invalid policy as a source of regular status, yet avoids the inequity and disruption of mass termination after prolonged State utilisation and litigation delay.

3.3 Impact

(i) Doctrinal impact on regularisation policies

• Legitimacy of “left-over” regularisation: Government policies that operate as a continuation of an earlier, eligibility-bound regularisation (particularly where similarly placed employees earlier received benefit) may survive scrutiny, especially where criteria mirror regular recruitment essentials (sanctioned post, qualifications, reservation, no relaxation).
• Futuristic regularisation is highly vulnerable: Policies that prospectively earmark regularisation based on future service completion dates, especially for persons engaged without open selection processes, are likely to be struck down as arbitrary/illegal.

(ii) Administrative impact and litigation management

The judgment signals that courts may:

• invalidate unconstitutional regularisation schemes, yet
• use Article 142 (or analogous equitable tools, depending on forum) to prevent disproportionate hardship where employees have continued for long and the State has benefited.

However, because Article 142 is unique to the Supreme Court, the case also underscores the importance of governments avoiding policy designs that require “equity rescue” after years of litigation.

(iii) Pay consequences for protected continuance

By pegging protected employees to the lowest pay scale, the Court creates a middle path: continuance is not converted into a windfall; at the same time, the State’s continued utilisation of labour is not left wholly unregulated. This may encourage future litigants to seek pay parity/minimum scale relief even where regularisation cannot be granted.

(iv) Open questions preserved

The Court explicitly left open broader contentions, including those advanced by the amicus (e.g., the interaction between Article 162 executive action and Article 309 rules, and the limits of judicial/executive regularisation power), indicating these issues may require fuller consideration by a larger bench or in a more suitable factual record.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 “Regularisation”

Regularisation means converting a temporary/contractual/ad hoc engagement into a regular post with the benefits and security of permanent service. Indian constitutional law treats regularisation cautiously because it can bypass equal opportunity and open competition.

4.2 “One time measure” (from Umadevi as clarified in M L Kesari)

“One time measure” does not mean the State gets repeated chances to regularise batches of employees forever. It means the State should conduct a single comprehensive exercise to identify and regularise those who qualify under strict conditions. M L Kesari clarifies that if the first exercise missed eligible persons (because of pending cases or oversight), later inclusion can be treated as a continuation of the same one-time exercise—not a fresh periodic regularisation drive.

4.3 “Illegal” vs “Irregular” appointments

As reflected in the reasoning drawn from M L Kesari:

• Illegal appointments: not against sanctioned posts or the appointee lacks minimum qualifications. These generally cannot be regularised.
• Irregular appointments: the appointee has qualifications and is working against a sanctioned post, but the selection lacked full open competitive process. Limited regularisation consideration may exist under the strict Umadevi framework.

4.4 Article 142 (Complete Justice)

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do “complete justice” in a pending cause. Here, it was used to prevent displacement of employees who continued for years under interim orders, while simultaneously refusing to validate the illegal July policy.

5. Conclusion

Madan Singh crystallises a pragmatic yet constitutionally conscious rule-set:

• Regularisation policies can be upheld where they function as a principled completion of a left-over regularisation exercise and insist on core eligibility safeguards (sanctioned posts, qualifications, reservation, no relaxation).
• Futuristic regularisation—especially for persons engaged without advertisement/interview and based on future cut-off dates— is arbitrary and illegal.
• Even where a policy is struck down, the Supreme Court may, in exceptional long-duration and reliance-heavy situations, protect incumbents from termination under Article 142, while calibrating financial and service consequences through placement at the lowest pay scale (per State Of Punjab And Others v. Jagjit Singh And Others).

In the broader landscape of public employment jurisprudence, the judgment reinforces the constitutional primacy of open recruitment, yet acknowledges that where the State has itself created long-term reliance through continued engagement and litigation delay, the remedial response may legitimately blend legality with carefully bounded equity.