The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a contingency driver cannot claim regularisation or promotion into a vacancy that is specifically earmarked for direct recruitment under the relevant Recruitment Rules and roster requirements. The decision came in response to a writ petition filed by an individual (the petitioner) who had been serving as a contingency driver since 2012 and sought regularisation of his service after completing eight years, relying on the fact that another contingency driver had earlier been regularised in 2020. The petitioner contended that, given his long continuous service, his representation for regularisation should be accepted rather than filling the vacant post through fresh direct recruitment.
The case arose after the Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board (APSSB) issued an advertisement in 2025 for a Group C Driver post in the Labour and Employment Department, reserved for an APST candidate. The petitioner challenged this advertisement, claiming that the existing vacancy should have been used to regularise his service or consider him for promotion, instead of being filled through open direct recruitment. The State, however, placed on record that as per the amended 2024 Recruitment Rules, only 50% of posts are to be filled by direct recruitment, 25% by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) from eligible contingency drivers, and 25% by LDCE from handymen. The state submitted that there were three sanctioned Group C Driver posts, two of which had already been filled, and that the third vacant post was earmarked for direct recruitment under the roster system.
In its judgment, the Court — through Justice Manish Choudhury — emphasized that while there is a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, such entitlement must be exercised in accordance with the extant Recruitment Rules. These rules, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, have the force of law and bind both employer and employee. The Court referred to the judgment of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Mishri Lal & others, which held that rules framed under Article 309 are legislative in character and can even be amended retrospectively. Given the clear stipulation in the amended 2024 Rules that the only method for a contingency driver’s appointment to the Group C Driver post is by promotion through LDCE (and not by regularisation), the petitioner's claim for regularisation had no legal basis. The Court noted that regularisation was not a permissible route under the updated scheme when the vacancy is reserved for direct recruitment.
Furthermore, applying the roster position, the Court held that the Department was required to fill the lone existing vacancy through direct recruitment to comply with the rules. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim, even for consideration through LDCE, was untenable. The Court clarified that although the petitioner’s long service may entitle him to attempt promotion via LDCE in future, it does not entitle him to demand automatic regularisation or obstruct a lawful direct recruitment process.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, reaffirming that the petitioner’s service as a contingency driver did not confer any right to regular employment or promotion inconsistent with the recruitment scheme. The Court observed that the petitioner could, in principle, apply for promotion when a vacancy arises in the LDCE quota reserved for promotion from contingency drivers, but not in respect of the direct‑recruitment quota. The judgment thus upholds the primacy of the recruitment rules and the roster system over claims based solely on length or continuity of service in a contingency capacity.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.