Background

The petition related to the Union Territory of Puducherry and related to an appeal against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench. The respondents, engaged as veterinary assistant surgeons on a contractual basis since 2005, requested regularization of their employment. Their appointments were periodically renewed and they remained in service for almost two decades. The petitioners, the Union of India and its officials, contended that the appointment of the respondents was temporary and did not constitute a right to permanent employment.

Respondents highlighted the lack of meaningful distinction between their functions and those of regular appointees, noting their work in minor veterinary clinics, laboratories and dispensaries across the Union Territory. They argued that their services met the urgent needs of the veterinary health sector in Puducherry. Additionally, sanctioned positions for veterinary assistants have not been fully filled, leaving the department dependent on contract employees to maintain essential services.

Arguments

The petitioners, represented by Mr. Syed Mustafa, Special Government Pleader for Puducherry, argued that the respondents were engaged only on an ad hoc basis to meet temporary staffing requirements. They claimed that the conditions of engagement clearly indicated the contractual nature of the employment, which did not entitle them to regularization. The petitioners pointed out that Article 320 of the Indian Constitution requires that appointments to Group ‘A’ posts, including veterinary assistants, should be made with the consent of the UPSC. They asserted that the regularization of the respondents would contravene this constitutional provision.

Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Karthik Rajan, countered by pointing out that the respondents had consistently performed duties similar to those of regular employees, often working in difficult conditions in rural dispensaries and clinics. The respondents argued that their contractual commitment was the result of the government’s inability to fill essential positions despite a long-standing, officially recognized need. They asserted that refusing them regularization after such prolonged service would be unfair, particularly given the essential nature of their functions.

Court reasoning

First, the court noted that the respondents’ appointments, although nominally contractual, had continued continuously for almost two decades. Citing the CAT findings, the court pointed out that the Union Territory’s continued reliance on these veterinarians highlighted a de facto need that went beyond the temporary requirements.

Second, the court considered the applicants’ reliance on Article 320; he agreed that the intention of the article was to maintain transparency and accountability in public appointments. However, he singled out this case, noting that the unique circumstances – particularly the chronic problem of vacancies – justified the Union Territory’s actions. The court emphasized that the respondents’ engagement was based on a transparent, merit-based process and did not involve any allegations of bias or impropriety. It was, at best, irregular but not illegal.

Third, the court noted that the need for veterinary services in Puducherry had been explicitly recognized by local and central authorities. Furthermore, the respondents were rehired several times, which clearly demonstrates their indispensable nature to the department. Fourth, the court considered Secretary of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), which limits the regularization of irregular appointments. The court held that the petitioners’ trust in Umadevi was misplaced, as the respondents’ engagement was not “backdoor” or unauthorized, but based on sanctioned posts and urgent needs. Thus, the court held that the order of the CAT directing regularization of the respondents was valid and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Union Territory. He ordered the regularization of the services of the respondents within eight weeks.

Decided on: 25-10-2024

Neutral quote: 2024: CMH: 3636

Court: Madras High Court

For the petitioners: Mr. Syed Mustafa, Special Government Pleader (Poducherry)

For respondents: Mr. Karthik Rajan (for R2 to R5), Mr. V. Chandrasekaran (for R6/UPSC)

Click here to read/download the order