- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And Others v. Umadevi And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Supreme Court was seized of a “bunch of appeals” arising from several judgments of the High Court of Karnataka. Some High Court judgments had ordered the State to regularise ad hoc employees (or at least consider them for regularisation), while others had declined such relief. Counsel for both sides informed the Court that between 30,000 and 40,000 employees across multiple State departments could ultimately be affected. Confronted with this large class of employees and diverging High Court outcomes, the Supreme Court examined the existing case-law on regularisation of ad hoc employees.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether ad hoc or temporary employees can be regularised solely on the basis of long, continuous service.
- Whether regularisation is permissible only against sanctioned or permanent vacancies and subject to satisfaction of prescribed qualifications and selection procedures.
- How to reconcile the conflicting lines of Supreme Court authority on the above questions.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1997) 2 SCC 1 | Regularisation is permissible only against sanctioned or permanent vacancies; long service alone is insufficient. | Cited to show one line of authority restricting regularisation. |
| State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118; (1992) 21 ATC 403 | Same principle as Ashwani Kumar—regularisation limited to sanctioned posts and qualified candidates. | Cited as part of the restrictive view on regularisation. |
| Dr. Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 3 SCC 485 | Recent two-Judge decision following the restrictive approach. | Referenced to illustrate a continuation of the restrictive line. |
| Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar, (2001) 3 SCC 574 | Long, continuous service may justify inference of permanent nature of work, compelling regularisation. | Cited as representing a contrasting, more liberal view. |
| Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361 | Practical experience gained through long service can override lack of minimum educational qualification for purposes of regularisation. | Invoked to support the liberal approach toward regularisation. |
| A.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 497 | Addressed the relevance of a cut-off date under a regularisation scheme. | Mentioned in passing; specific application not decided. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted a clear conflict among its own precedents: some judgments (e.g., Ashwani Kumar and Piara Singh) permit regularisation only against sanctioned vacancies and after compliance with eligibility norms, whereas others (e.g., Gujarat Agricultural University and Bhagwati Prasad) place substantial weight on long, uninterrupted service as a ground for regularisation. Given the large number of affected employees and the divergence between two-Judge and three-Judge Bench decisions, the Court concluded that a definitive pronouncement is necessary. To achieve doctrinal clarity and maintain judicial discipline, the Court determined that the case should be heard by a Bench of three Judges.
Holding and Implications
ORDER OF REFERENCE: The matter is referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of a three-Judge Bench to resolve the conflicting precedents on regularisation of ad hoc employees.
Implications: No final relief is granted to the parties at this stage. The order merely sets in motion a larger Bench hearing that will harmonise existing case-law and provide authoritative guidance affecting tens of thousands of ad hoc employees in Karnataka. Until the three-Judge Bench decides the substantive questions, the legal position on regularisation remains unsettled.
Order
1. This bunch of appeals is against the judgments of the High Court of Karnataka, in some of which the Court has directed regularisation of the ad hoc employees or their consideration for regularisation while in some other appeals the request for regularisation has been refused. It is indicated by the learned counsel for both sides that the number of employees involved would be in thousands, maybe 30,000 to 40,000, in different departments of the State Government. So far as the position of law relating to the regularisation of the ad hoc employees is concerned, it is submitted that there are conflicting views of this Court between the decisions of Benches consisting of two Judges and three Judges. In this connection reference has been made to two decisions of this Court rendered by three-Judge Benches, namely, Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar (1997) 2 SCC 1 and State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118, (1992) 21 ATC 403. It is submitted that in both these decisions it has been held that regularisation is possible only against sanctioned or permanent vacancies. If such vacancies are not available or the candidates lack in eligibility or qualifications in any manner, then too it would not be possible to order for regularisation of such employees, besides the requirement of compliance with selection procedure. Thus, long duration of service would not be a relevant consideration to regularise the services. On this point our attention has been drawn to a recent two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Chanchal Goyal (Dr.) v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 3 SCC 485.
2. In Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar (2001) 3 SCC 574 (a two-Judge Bench decision) this Court has approved the view of the Single Judge of the High Court inferring permanent nature of the work on the basis of long continuance of service and the vastness of the establishment of the employer. It has also been observed:
“If the work is of such a nature, which has to be taken continuously and in any case when this pattern becomes apparent, while they continue to work for year after year, the only option to the employer is to regularise them.”
On coming to the above conclusion, reliance was placed upon a decision of this Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corpn. (1990) 1 SCC 361 which is a three-Judge Bench decision. In this case also, in view of the long duration of work by means of which the employees had gathered practical experience, it was held that the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post would not come in the way of regularisation of the employees. There are some decisions taking different views, on the question of cut-off date as provided under the scheme for regularisation, in connection whereof a reference has been made to a decision of this Court in A.K Jain (Dr.) v. Union of India 1987 Supp SCC 497.
3. Looking to the position as it stands under the law regarding regularisation, namely, different views expressed in different decisions of this Court, we feel that it would be appropriate that the matter may be heard by a three-Judge Bench, so as to appropriately appreciate the legal position and decide the matter accordingly.
4. Let the papers be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a three-Judge Bench for the purpose.
Court Masters
Alert