In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that the landmark judgment in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) cannot be used as a shield to deny the legitimate rights of employees who have served for years in public institutions. The apex court, in Union of India & Anr. v. K. Velajagan & Ors. (SLP(C) No. 2868/2018), directed the regularization of 18 ad hoc lecturers working at Motilal Nehru Government Polytechnic College, Puducherry, and pulled up the government for failing to implement a fair recruitment process.
The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan observed that denying regularization in cases where individuals have served for nearly two decades amounts to exploitation. The court also ordered an inquiry by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) into the large-scale illegal ad hoc appointments made by the Government of Puducherry.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from the employment of three lecturers at Motilal Nehru Government Polytechnic College, Puducherry, who were initially appointed on an hourly basis in 2005 with approval from the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry. Over the years, they continued serving without regularization, prompting them to move the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench in 2012.
The CAT, Madras Bench, in its judgment dated April 3, 2013, ruled in favor of the lecturers, citing that similarly placed lecturers had been regularized, and denying the same benefit to the petitioners was discriminatory. The Government of Puducherry challenged this order before the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 30904/2014, which upheld the tribunal’s decision on September 27, 2016. The Union of India then filed the present Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues Considered
Right to Regularization for Long-Term Ad Hoc Employees
The court examined whether lecturers appointed on an ad hoc basis in 2005 should be regularized, given that their services had continued uninterrupted for years.
Applicability of the Uma Devi Judgment (2006)
The government relied on the Uma Devi judgment, which held that public employment must be in accordance with constitutional provisions, and ad hoc appointments cannot claim regularization as a right. The court had to decide whether this ruling applied in the present case.
Failure to Conduct Proper Recruitment Despite Established Rules
The court also considered the 2006 Recruitment Rules, which came into effect after the petitioners’ appointment. The government failed to conduct a proper recruitment process post-2006, leaving multiple positions occupied by ad hoc employees for years.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment
1. The Uma Devi Judgment Cannot Justify Exploitation
Rejecting the government’s reliance on Uma Devi, the Supreme Court observed:
“The decision in Uma Devi (2006), as reiterated in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025), cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the employer undertaking legitimate recruitment processes to deny relief of regularization.”
2. Government’s Lapses in Conducting Proper Recruitment
The court criticized the Government of Puducherry for failing to conduct a proper recruitment process after the 2006 Rules were introduced:
“Why due recruitment process, immediately after the 2006 Rules were introduced, was not conducted is a question which the petitioners have failed to satisfactorily answer.”
3. Order for Regularization of 18 Lecturers
Noting that 15 other lecturers in similar positions had already been granted regularization, the court directed that the petitioners, along with these 15 lecturers, be regularized without any involvement of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
The court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure that justice was done, ordering:
“All 18 incumbent lecturers (15 + 3) be regularized by the Government of Puducherry without any involvement of the UPSC.”
4. Inquiry into Large-Scale Illegal Appointments
The Supreme Court also took serious note of the ad hoc appointments in government institutions and ordered an inquiry by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) into the failure of the Puducherry administration to follow proper recruitment procedures:
“The manner in which ad hoc lecturers have been appointed in the Polytechnic College by the Government of Puducherry even after the 2006 Rules were introduced warrants an in-depth inquiry to find out who was responsible for such illegal appointments.”
The court directed that the CVC submit a report fixing accountability by May 14, 2025.
