The Jammu & Kashmir High Court delivered a significant judgment that reinforces the legal and moral imperative to distinguish between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments in public service. The case revolved around six employees of the Jammu & Kashmir State Cable Car Corporation who had served the organization diligently for over a decade. Despite working in sanctioned positions and having fulfilled eligibility conditions at the time of their engagement, their appointments had never been formally regularized by the Corporation. This prolonged uncertainty in their service status prompted them to seek judicial intervention for recognition as regular employees.
The petitioners contended that their appointments were made after a legitimate selection process, that they were placed against clear vacancies duly sanctioned by the competent authority, and that they had been rendering uninterrupted service for more than ten years. They argued that any irregularity in the formal issuance of their appointment letters or subsequent confirmation could not be attributed to them and should not be used as a reason to deny them the benefits of regularization. Their plea was based not only on their eligibility and selection but also on the equitable principle that long and unblemished service should not be disregarded due to procedural lapses by the employer.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the matter, acknowledged that the issue before the Court was not simply about whether the appointments followed every technical requirement, but whether these employees, having served faithfully and without fault, could be denied regularization solely because of procedural irregularities that were administrative in nature. The Court emphasized that an “irregular appointment” refers to an appointment that may not strictly comply with every procedural formality but is otherwise made in good faith and in line with the spirit of the rules. In contrast, an “illegal appointment” is one that fundamentally violates legal provisions, often tainted by fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of authority.
Justice Dhar made it clear that the petitioners did not fall into the category of illegal appointees. They had the requisite qualifications, their posts were sanctioned, and their selection was not challenged. The only issue was the Corporation’s failure to formalize their employment in writing. The Court held that it would be manifestly unjust to treat these employees as ad-hoc or temporary workers in perpetuity when the organization itself had relied on their services for over a decade. Denying them regularization in such circumstances would result in exploitation and violate the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness.
In conclusion, the High Court directed the Jammu & Kashmir State Cable Car Corporation to regularize the services of the petitioners with retrospective effect from the dates of their initial engagement. The judgment reiterates a vital tenet of service law — that qualified individuals who serve the government for long periods under sanctioned posts cannot be discarded due to mere administrative inertia. The ruling is a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of workers against institutional neglect and in ensuring that equity and legality are harmoniously applied in public employment.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.