Introduction:

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has disposed of three connected writ petitions filed by contractual and daily-wage employees working at the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), Srinagar Regional Centre, seeking regularisation of their services against Group C and Group D posts. Justice M. A. Chowdhary directed that the petitioners’ claims be considered by the University’s decision-making authority in accordance with the principles and directions laid down by the Division Bench in an earlier judgment concerning similarly situated employees.

The ruling addresses an important issue in public employment: whether individuals who have worked for several years on contractual or daily-wage terms, with their engagements repeatedly renewed to meet the continuing requirements of a public institution, can claim regularisation as a matter of right. It also examines the limits of judicial intervention in employment matters, particularly where the applicable recruitment rules prescribe a specific procedure for filling sanctioned posts.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking directions to the University to regularise their services against the posts on which they had been working since their respective dates of engagement. They asserted that their appointments had been made through a selection process, that they possessed the requisite qualifications and that they had been discharging duties against vacant positions within the University’s Srinagar Regional Centre since 2008 onwards.

According to the petitioners, their continued engagement over an extended period demonstrated that their services were required for the regular functioning of the institution rather than for occasional or temporary work. They contended that the University could not indefinitely retain employees on contractual or daily-wage arrangements while continuing to derive the benefit of their services. Their claims also relied upon the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work and the provisions of IGNOU’s Non-Academic Employees Recruitment and Promotional Rules, 2010.

The University, however, opposed the petitions, maintaining that the petitioners had been engaged as daily-wage or contractual workers to meet seasonal requirements arising during admission and examination periods. According to the respondents, their engagement did not confer any right to regular appointment, particularly because regular recruitment was required to be conducted in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules.

An important aspect of the dispute was an earlier judgment delivered by a Single Judge on 14 March 2016 in a case involving similarly situated employees. That judgment had directed that the petitioners therein be treated as having been appointed on a regular basis and granted corresponding service benefits. The University challenged that decision before a Division Bench, which set it aside on 3 April 2024.

Although the Division Bench rejected the direction granting deemed regular appointment, it also made significant observations about the manner in which the employees had been treated. It noted that repeated renewals of engagement over several years had created an impression of quasi-permanent employment and that the University’s conduct had lacked clarity and fairness. The Division Bench further held that IGNOU’s Regional Centres, particularly those in the North-East, Sikkim and Jammu and Kashmir, operated in permanent establishment mode and had cadre posts for employment.

Against this legal background, Justice Chowdhary considered the three connected petitions in light of the Division Bench’s findings. The High Court’s approach preserved the distinction between an employee’s claim to regularisation and the right to have that claim considered fairly, in accordance with the applicable rules and the binding judicial directions governing the matter.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioners contended that they had been engaged at the IGNOU Regional Centre in Srinagar against vacant posts from 2008 onwards. They maintained that their appointments had followed a due process of selection and that they possessed the educational qualifications and other eligibility requirements necessary for the posts they occupied. Their continued service over a substantial period, according to them, demonstrated that their engagement was not merely incidental or temporary but was connected with the continuing administrative requirements of the Regional Centre.

A central argument advanced by the petitioners was that the University could not indefinitely rely upon contractual and daily-wage arrangements when the work performed by them formed part of its continuing institutional functions. They claimed that repeated renewals of their engagements had effectively ensured the uninterrupted functioning of the relevant sections. In their view, the prolonged nature of their service, coupled with the availability of posts and their qualifications, justified consideration of their claims for regular appointment.

The petitioners accordingly sought directions requiring the University to regularise them as Group C and Group D employees against the posts on which they had been working. Their claim was based not merely on the duration of their employment but also on the nature of their duties, the circumstances of their selection and the asserted existence of vacancies in the establishment.

They also relied upon Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, which embodies the principle of equal pay for equal work. They argued that where contractual or daily-wage employees performed duties comparable to those of regular employees, the constitutional principle should inform the treatment of their claims. Their reliance on this principle reflected their contention that employment classifications should not be used to perpetuate unfair differences in treatment where the work performed was substantially similar.

However, the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work primarily concerns remuneration for comparable work and does not, by itself, establish an automatic right to regularisation. The petitioners’ regularisation claims therefore also depended on the recruitment framework, the nature of their engagement and the legal consequences of their prolonged service.

The petitioners further relied upon the Indira Gandhi National Open University (Non-Academic Employees—Group A, B and C) Recruitment and Promotional Rules, 2010. They submitted that the Rules provided for filling 25 per cent of the Junior Assistant-cum-Typist posts through promotion from Multi-Tasking Staff who had completed a minimum of five years of continuous service in that grade.

According to the petitioners, their long-standing engagement from 2008 onwards should be taken into account in determining their eligibility under the relevant promotional framework. They argued that their experience and length of service warranted recognition of their claims under the applicable rules, including consideration of their asserted entitlement to be designated as Multi-Tasking Staff and to be considered for promotion under the prescribed quota.

The respondents, representing IGNOU, disputed the petitioners’ claims and maintained that their engagement had been purely contractual or on a daily-wage basis. According to the University’s objections, the petitioners had been engaged as a stop-gap arrangement to meet additional workload arising during admissions and examinations. The respondents contended that such arrangements were intended to address seasonal requirements and could not be treated as regular appointments to sanctioned posts.

The University further argued that the posts in question were required to be filled in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. Since the petitioners had not been appointed through the prescribed regular recruitment procedure, their continued engagement could not automatically entitle them to regularisation. The respondents maintained that granting regular status outside the applicable rules would undermine the prescribed recruitment framework and bypass the requirements governing public employment.

The respondents also disputed the applicability of the 2010 Recruitment and Promotional Rules to the petitioners. They argued that the Rules applied to employees appointed on regular or temporary bases and did not extend to ad hoc appointees, contractual workers or daily-wage employees. According to the University, the terms and conditions of such engagements were governed by the respective engagement orders and undertakings furnished by the employees at the time of their appointment.

On this basis, the respondents maintained that the petitioners could not rely on the promotional provisions applicable to eligible employees in the University’s regular establishment without first satisfying the requirements governing their employment status. They argued that the petitioners’ claims had to be examined within the limits of the governing rules rather than on the basis of length of service alone.

The University also raised objections concerning the individual circumstances of the petitioners. It submitted that the petitioners in the first writ petition had approached the Court shortly after their engagement and had continued in service under interim judicial orders. The respondents contended that one of the employees had already left the service, while the petitioner in the third writ petition had not resumed duties after applying for maternity leave.

The respondents further argued that continued employment under an interim order did not create an enforceable right to regularisation. An employee could not, merely because an interim direction enabled continuation in service, claim that the underlying contractual arrangement had acquired the status of a regular appointment. The University therefore sought dismissal of the petitions on the ground that the petitioners had not established a legal entitlement to the relief claimed.

The respondents also relied on the earlier litigation involving similarly situated employees. They pointed out that the Single Judge’s order dated 14 March 2016, which had granted deemed regular status and corresponding service benefits, had been challenged by the University before the Division Bench. In its judgment dated 3 April 2024, the Division Bench set aside that order and rejected the approach of judicially declaring contractual employees to have been appointed regularly.

The parties’ competing positions consequently raised two related questions. The first was whether the petitioners could claim regularisation as an automatic consequence of their prolonged contractual or daily-wage engagement. The second was whether, despite the rejection of automatic regularisation in the earlier litigation, their cases were entitled to fair consideration in light of the Division Bench’s findings about the permanent establishment of the Regional Centres and the University’s treatment of its employees.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice M. A. Chowdhary considered the three connected writ petitions in the light of the earlier proceedings involving similarly situated employees of IGNOU. The High Court examined the legal effect of the Single Judge’s judgment dated 14 March 2016 and, in particular, the subsequent decision of the Division Bench dated 3 April 2024, which had set aside the direction granting deemed regular appointment.

The earlier writ proceedings were significant because they concerned employees who had sought regularisation on grounds substantially similar to those advanced by the present petitioners. By its order dated 14 March 2016, the Writ Court had directed that the employees concerned be deemed to have been appointed on a regular basis against the posts on which they had been engaged contractually. The order also contemplated the grant of salary and other service benefits calculated on the footing that their appointments were regular.

The University challenged that decision before the Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal. By its judgment dated 3 April 2024, the Division Bench held that the Single Judge had exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review by assuming the position of the employer and declaring the contractual employees to be regular appointees. The Division Bench accordingly set aside the directions granting deemed regular status and consequential service benefits.

The Division Bench’s reasoning centred on the distinction between judicial review and the authority responsible for making appointments. A constitutional court may examine whether an employer’s decision is lawful, fair and consistent with the applicable rules. However, the Court cannot ordinarily take over the employer’s role and itself declare contractual employees to have been appointed regularly without a proper legal basis for doing so.

The Division Bench considered the earlier direction legally unsustainable because it effectively substituted the Court’s decision for that of IGNOU, the employer. Declaring an employee to have been appointed regularly involves consequences relating to recruitment, eligibility, sanctioned posts and service benefits. These matters must be determined within the applicable legal framework and by the authority competent to make the relevant employment decisions.

Nevertheless, the Division Bench did not disregard the circumstances in which the employees had been working. It expressly observed that the petitioners in the earlier proceedings had not been treated with sufficient clarity and fairness by the University. This observation was important because it recognised that the rejection of an automatic right to regularisation did not eliminate the University’s responsibility to deal fairly with individuals whose services had been repeatedly renewed over a substantial period.

The Division Bench also considered the nature of IGNOU’s Regional Centres. It noted the uncertainty surrounding the status of the Srinagar Regional Centre and questioned whether its administration and management were intended to function through an arrangement of repeated ad hoc hiring and discontinuation of workers.

After examining the circumstances, the Division Bench held that IGNOU’s Regional Centres, particularly those in the North-East, Sikkim and Jammu and Kashmir, operated in permanent establishment mode and had cadre posts for employment. It observed that the petitioners had been engaged and their engagements renewed from time to time to perform duties against the respective posts, although their formal employment status remained contractual or daily-wage in nature.

The significance of this observation lay in the recognition that the Regional Centres were not necessarily operating solely through temporary or seasonal arrangements. Their institutional functioning involved continuing employment requirements, and the repeated engagement of workers against relevant posts had to be considered in that context.

The Division Bench further acknowledged that the employees had devoted a substantial part of their working lives to the functioning of the Regional Centre at Srinagar. Their engagements had been renewed repeatedly, allowing the Centre to continue its operations. Over time, these circumstances had created an impression among the employees that their employment had acquired a quasi-permanent character.

The Court’s observation did not amount to a declaration that the employees had thereby become regular appointees. Rather, it identified the practical circumstances relevant to the fairness of their treatment. The difference is legally significant: an employee may have legitimate grounds to seek a fair assessment of their employment situation without necessarily possessing an automatic entitlement to a regular appointment.

In disposing of the three connected writ petitions, Justice Chowdhary took account of the Division Bench’s findings and directed that the petitioners’ cases be considered by the University’s decision-making authority in accordance with that judgment. The direction required the University to assess their claims within the framework established by the earlier appellate ruling rather than treat the matter as though the earlier direction granting deemed regularisation remained operative.

The approach preserves the distinction between the power to consider an employment claim and the power to grant a particular service status. The competent authority must examine the petitioners’ claims in the light of the applicable recruitment provisions, the circumstances of their engagement and the binding observations made by the Division Bench. The mere passage of time does not dispense with the requirements of lawful recruitment, but neither should the employees’ prolonged service and repeated renewals be disregarded when their claims are examined.

The decision also highlights the limited role of courts in matters of public employment. Courts can ensure that administrative authorities act within the law, follow binding judicial directions and consider relevant circumstances fairly. However, they cannot ordinarily bypass prescribed recruitment procedures or confer regular status simply because contractual arrangements have continued for many years.

This principle is particularly important in institutions governed by formal recruitment rules. Regular appointment to a public post generally requires compliance with applicable eligibility conditions and recruitment procedures. Long service, even when accompanied by repeated renewals, does not automatically cure every defect in the original engagement or create an unconditional right to absorption into the regular establishment.

At the same time, the University’s obligation to consider the petitioners’ cases cannot be understood as merely formal. The Division Bench had specifically identified concerns regarding clarity and fairness in the treatment of the employees. It had also recognised the permanent establishment mode of the relevant Regional Centres and the existence of cadre posts. Those observations form an important part of the legal context in which the University’s decision-making authority must consider the claims.

The petitioners’ reliance on the principle of equal pay for equal work and the promotional provisions of the 2010 Rules must similarly be examined according to the scope of the applicable law. The principle of equal pay for equal work concerns the treatment of employees performing comparable duties, subject to the relevant legal requirements. It does not independently transform a contractual engagement into a regular appointment.

Likewise, eligibility for promotion under the Recruitment and Promotional Rules depends on the provisions governing the relevant post and the employee’s qualifying status. The petitioners’ contention that their service should be recognised for the purpose of the prescribed promotional quota would therefore require consideration in accordance with the Rules and the circumstances of their engagement. The High Court’s direction to consider their cases does not, by itself, establish that the petitioners are eligible for promotion or that they must be regularised.

The respondents’ objections concerning interim orders and the individual employment circumstances of the petitioners also form part of the context in which the claims must be assessed. Continuation in service under an interim judicial order does not, by itself, confer regular status. Similarly, questions concerning discontinuation, absence from service or the applicability of particular recruitment provisions must be dealt with under the governing rules and the facts relevant to each employee.

The ultimate outcome ws therefore a direction for consideration rath