Introduction:
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has ruled that the Government cannot promise permanent public employment to individuals in exchange for land donated for public projects, nor can it bypass constitutional recruitment requirements by engaging people as casual workers and subsequently regularising their services through a policy. Describing the practice of selecting individuals at the Government’s discretion, initially engaging them under labels such as daily wagers or casual workers, and later granting them permanent employment as a “fraud on the Constitution of India,” the Court reiterated that public appointments must conform to the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice M. A. Chowdhary while considering a writ petition filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and other officials under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, which had directed the regularisation of certain workers on the ground that they had completed ten years of continuous casual service. The High Court modified the Tribunal’s decision, holding that the workers were entitled to consideration for regular engagement under the applicable statutory framework, but that the Tribunal had erred in directing their regular appointment outright.
The dispute arose from the engagement of individuals as casual labourers in the Department of Irrigation and Flood Control in 2014. The workers had donated land for the construction of tube wells in different villages. According to them, the gift deeds executed in favour of the Government contained a stipulation that they would receive Government employment in return for the donated land. Although the workers were engaged in the department, their appointments were made on a casual basis rather than through the regular recruitment process applicable to Government posts.
The workers maintained that the commitment made at the time of the land donation contemplated permanent Government employment, not merely casual work. They argued that their continued service and the passage of time strengthened their entitlement to regularisation. After rendering several years of service, they approached the High Court seeking relief. Their petition was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, which considered the dispute and directed their regularisation against available posts, relying on their completion of ten years of continuous casual service.
The Government challenged the Tribunal’s order before the High Court. It argued that the workers’ engagement was governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Casual and Other Workers—Regular Engagement Rules, 2017, issued through SRO 520. According to the Government, any benefit of regular engagement had to be determined strictly in accordance with those Rules and the applicable executive instructions. It further maintained that the promise of a Government job made in connection with the land donation could not be interpreted as a guarantee of permanent appointment outside the prescribed recruitment framework.
The case therefore raised two connected legal questions. The first concerned the limits of the Government’s authority to promise employment in return for land donated for a public purpose. The second concerned the rights of individuals who had been engaged as casual workers and had continued to work for an extended period. The Court had to balance the workers’ claim arising from their long service and the applicable regular-engagement rules against the constitutional requirement that public employment be governed by fair, transparent and legally authorised procedures.
In addressing these issues, the High Court emphasised that Government employment is not a private benefit that public authorities may distribute at their discretion. Public posts must be filled in accordance with recruitment rules and procedures that uphold Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which protect equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment. A promise made by a Government department cannot override those constitutional obligations or permit individuals to obtain permanent posts without the prescribed selection process.
At the same time, the Court did not disregard the workers’ circumstances. It noted that their land donations and continued engagement as casual workers were undisputed and that they had served for more than ten years. It therefore recognised their entitlement to consideration for regular engagement under Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. The distinction between regular appointment and regular engagement proved central to the outcome: while the workers could not claim permanent appointment merely on the basis of the alleged promise or the Tribunal’s direction, their claims under the applicable Rules had to be considered in accordance with law.
Arguments of the Parties:
The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the other petitioners challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order directing the regularisation of the respondents. Their principal contention was that the Tribunal had granted relief without properly applying the legal framework governing the engagement and regularisation of casual and other workers. They argued that the respondents’ service conditions were regulated by the Jammu and Kashmir Casual and Other Workers—Regular Engagement Rules, 2017, issued vide SRO 520, and that any entitlement to regular engagement had to be assessed within that statutory framework.
The petitioners did not dispute that the respondents had donated their land for the construction of tube wells or that they had continued to work as casual labourers from 2014. Their challenge was directed principally at the legal consequence the Tribunal had attached to those circumstances. In their submission, the fact that the workers had rendered long service could not independently justify a direction for regular appointment without determining whether the requirements of the applicable Rules had been satisfied.
The Government also disputed the interpretation placed by the respondents on the employment-related stipulation contained in the gift deeds. It submitted that the promise to provide a Government job did not amount to a commitment to grant permanent employment. According to the petitioners, the workers had been engaged as casual labourers in consideration of the circumstances surrounding the land donation, and the nature of that engagement could not be transformed into a regular appointment merely because the respondents expected a permanent Government position.
The petitioners’ position rested on the principle that public employment must be governed by the law and recruitment rules in force. Even where an administrative arrangement or undertaking creates an expectation of employment, it cannot authorise a public authority to disregard mandatory recruitment requirements. The Government maintained that regularisation, where legally permissible, had to follow the applicable Rules or valid executive orders rather than arise automatically from a promise allegedly made at the time of acquiring land for a public project.
The challenge also brought into focus the difference between granting relief for long-standing casual employment and directing a regular appointment without the prescribed procedure. The petitioners sought the High Court’s intervention to modify the Tribunal’s order so that the respondents’ claims would be dealt with under the 2017 Rules instead of being granted regularisation outright. Their case was that the Tribunal could not bypass the applicable framework merely because the workers had completed a specified period of service.
The respondents, on the other hand, defended their claim to regular employment by relying on the circumstances in which they had initially been engaged. They maintained that they had donated land to the Government for the construction of tube wells in different villages and had executed gift deeds containing an express stipulation that Government employment would be provided in return. According to them, the employment commitment was not limited to casual labour but contemplated a permanent Government job.
Their argument was that the Government had received the benefit of the donated land for a public purpose and had consequently undertaken to provide employment to the donors. The respondents contended that the promise had to be understood in the sense in which it was made and that merely engaging them as casual workers did not satisfy the commitment. From their perspective, the Government could not rely on the temporary or casual designation of their work to deny the permanent employment they claimed had been promised.
The respondents also relied on their continued service in the department. They had been engaged in 2014 and had worked for several years thereafter. By the time their claim was considered by the Tribunal, they asserted that they had completed ten years of continuous casual service. They maintained that the length of their service, considered alongside the circumstances of their initial engagement and the undertaking recorded in the gift deeds, supported their demand for regularisation.
The Central Administrative Tribunal had accepted their claim and directed their regularisation against available posts, relying on the completion of ten years of continuous casual service. The respondents’ position before the High Court was therefore that the Tribunal’s order should be sustained because it recognised the consequences of their long service and the commitment allegedly made in exchange for their land.
The competing submissions presented the Court with a conflict between the respondents’ reliance on the employment promise and their years of service, on the one hand, and the Government’s duty to comply with constitutional recruitment requirements, on the other. The respondents emphasised fairness in light of the land they had donated and the work they had performed. The petitioners argued that these circumstances could not authorise permanent appointment outside the governing legal framework.
The central issue was not whether the workers had actually donated land or performed casual work; those facts were not disputed. Rather, the question was whether the alleged promise of a Government job could be interpreted as a legally enforceable assurance of permanent employment and whether ten years of casual service entitled the workers to direct regularisation without further consideration under the applicable Rules.
The supplied case summary does not set out any additional, separately identified submissions by the respondents beyond their contention that the promised Government job was intended to be permanent rather than casual. Accordingly, the dispute is best understood through the parties’ recorded positions: the Government insisted on compliance with the 2017 Rules and constitutional recruitment requirements, while the workers relied on the gift deeds, the circumstances of their engagement and their prolonged service to support their claim to permanent employment.
Court’s Judgment:
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice M. A. Chowdhary disposed of the writ petition and modified the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order. It held that the Government could not promise permanent employment to individuals in return for land donated for public purposes, because public appointments must be made in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and constitutional requirements. At the same time, it recognised that the respondents’ prolonged service brought their claims within the framework governing regular engagement, subject to the conditions prescribed by the relevant Rules.
The Court began by considering the undisputed factual background. The respondents had donated land for the construction of tube wells, and the gift deeds contained a stipulation that they would be provided Government employment. They were subsequently engaged as casual labourers in the department. The Court noted that their engagement had been made in lieu of the land donated for a public purpose, rather than through the ordinary process of recruitment to permanent Government posts.
The Bench held that the Government did not possess the authority to promise a permanent Government job to a person merely because that person had donated land for a public project. While the State may acquire or receive land for public purposes in accordance with law, the resulting arrangement cannot override the constitutional rules governing recruitment. The Court distinguished the Government’s ability to engage a person as casual labour from its authority to confer a permanent public appointment.
The Court observed that permanent employment in a Government department must be granted in accordance with the recruitment rules in force and through a selection process consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. These provisions ensure that public authorities act within the law and that eligible candidates receive equal opportunity to compete for public posts. A promise of employment made to a particular individual cannot lawfully displace the rights of other eligible candidates or eliminate the requirement of a fair and transparent selection process.
The constitutional concern was central to the judgment. Government employment is not merely a contractual arrangement between an individual and a department. It involves the allocation of public posts and the exercise of public authority. Recruitment procedures are intended to prevent arbitrary selection, favouritism and the distribution of Government positions according to personal preference or private arrangements. Where a public authority promises a permanent job to a particular individual without following the prescribed process, it risks excluding other eligible persons who are equally entitled to consideration.
Against this background, the Court strongly criticised the practice of selecting individuals from the open market, engaging them under labels such as daily wagers, casual workers, ad hoc appointees or consolidated workers, and subsequently introducing a regularisation policy to confer permanent employment upon them. It held that the Government and its officers were not empowered to choose individuals at their discretion and then use a later regularisation policy to grant them the benefit of permanent public employment.
The Bench described such a practice as a “fraud on the Constitution of India.” The expression reflected the Court’s concern that regularisation cannot be used as a device to legitimise an appointment process that failed to comply with constitutional standards from the outset. If authorities could freely select individuals without advertisement or transparent selection and later regularise them through a policy, the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment would be undermined.
The Court also observed that Government departments were not competent to engage daily wagers, casual workers, ad hoc employees or consolidated workers without the requisite notification or advertisement and without a selection procedure that was fair, just, transparent and consistent with Articles 14 and 16. The constitutional obligation to provide equal opportunity is not limited to the final stage of appointment. It also requires that access to public employment be structured in a manner that allows eligible candidates a fair opportunity to compete.
The Court explained that making permanent employment a promised consideration for the donation of land would effectively place Government jobs on sale. Such an arrangement would be inconsistent with the rule of law, which forms an essential foundation of constitutional democracy. The Government may pursue public infrastructure projects and receive land for those purposes, but it cannot exchange permanent appointments for private contributions in a way that bypasses the legally mandated recruitment process.
This reasoning was particularly relevant to the respondents’ reliance on the gift deeds. Although the documents contained a stipulation concerning Government employment, the Court held that the Government lacked the authority to guarantee a permanent public job in return for the donated land. The existence of a promise could not supply a legal power that the Government did not possess. Nor could an undertaking by public officials override the constitutional conditions that govern appointments to public service.
The judgment therefore drew a distinction between the alleged commitment to provide employment and the legal entitlement to permanent appointment. Even if the respondents had understood the undertaking as a promise of permanent work, that understanding could not exempt their appointments from the constitutional recruitment framework. The Court’s concern was not limited to the wording of the gift deeds; it extended to the broader principle that public posts must be filled under rules that protect equality and prevent arbitrary selection.
However, the Court did not conclude that the respondents were entitled to no relief at all. It considered their position under the Jammu and Kashmir Casual and Other Workers—Regular Engagement Rules, 2017. Their initial engagement in 2014 and their continued service for more than ten years were undisputed. The Bench recognised that these circumstances entitled them to consideration for regular engagement under Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules, provided they fulfilled the requirements prescribed under that provision and the applicable framework.
This was an important qualification to the Court’s rejection of automatic regularisation. The constitutional prohibition against bypassing recruitment rules did not mean that the Government could ignore the rights or claims that workers might possess under a valid statutory scheme for regular engagement. The workers’ entitlement had to be determined according to the Rules that governed their service, rather than on the basis of an alleged promise of permanent employment or the mere passage of time.
The Court found that the Tribunal had referred to the 2017 Rules but had erred by directing the Government to grant regular appointment to the respondents. In the Bench’s view, the appropriate relief was to require consideration of their cases for regular engagement in accordance with the Rules, subject to the fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. The Tribunal’s direction went too far because it effectively granted regularisation without leaving room for the Government to apply the governing eligibility requirements.
The distinction between “regular appointment” and “regular engagement” was therefore decisive. Regular appointment to a permanent Government post ordinarily requires compliance with the relevant recruitment rules and selection procedures. Regular engagement under a particular statutory scheme, by contrast, depends on the terms and conditions established by that scheme. The Court held that the respondents could claim the benefit available under the 2017 Rules, but not an unconditional direction for permanent appointment simply because they had served for ten years.
The Court’s approach sought to preserve both constitutional principles and the operation of the applicable rules. On the one hand, it refused to validate a system in which permanent employment could be promised to selected individuals in exchange for land. On the other, it recognised that the respndents’ long service had to be consider