Madras High Court· 20 July 2026
Can regularisation be granted where the employee was not appointed through open competitive selection against sanctioned vacant posts?
Typist, Subordinate Court, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District, Pincode-614001 v. 1. The Registrar General,
WP No. 20836 of 2026 · WP No. 20836 of 2026
Coram: Justice S.M.Subramaniam · Justice And N.Senthilkumar
Answer
No. Following the Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and the three-Judge Bench in Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, the equality clause under Articles 14 and 16 must be scrupulously followed, and regularisation cannot be directed unless appointment was made pursuant to regular recruitment in an open competitive process against sanctioned vacant posts, since back-door appointments would be violative of the constitutional scheme.
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 226 — Art. 14 — Art. 16 — Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules — Rule 16(e)(i) — Regularisation — Temporary appointment against non-sanctioned post —
Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 226 — Judicial review — Limits on power to direct regularisation —
Held: A writ court exercising judicial review under Article 226 cannot direct an employer to regularise a temporary employee's service in violation of the recruitment rules in force, such a direction falling beyond the realm of judicial review. (¶17)
Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules — Rule 16(e)(i) — Temporary appointment — No preferential claim to future appointment —
Held further: An appointment made under Rule 16(e)(i) confers no probationer status and no preferential claim to future appointment, and having accepted these terms the employee cannot turn around and claim permanency without undergoing the regular recruitment process. (¶8, 16)
Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 14 — Art. 16 — Equal opportunity — Sanctioned vacant posts through open competitive process —
Held further: Regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance cannot be directed unless the employee was appointed pursuant to a regular recruitment in an open competitive process against sanctioned vacant posts, since back-door appointments dilute the equality clause and constitute a constitutional sin. (¶10, 18, 19)
Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules — Rule 16(e)(i) — Non-sanctioned post — Direction for regular recruitment with participation opportunity —
Held further: Temporary appointments cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely so as to generate expectations of regularisation; the Judicial Department must undertake regular recruitment on an annual basis to fill sanctioned posts, and the petitioner shall be permitted to participate in such recruitment, with age relaxation if necessary, without dispensing with educational and essential qualifications. Writ petition disposed of, with no order as to costs. (¶24, 25, 26)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 10All appointments to public posts are to be made strictly under the Constitutional Scheme. Irregular, illegal, and back-door appointments not only violate the applicable Service Rules but also infringe the fundamental rights of meritorious candidates who are all aspiring to secure public employment through an open and competitive selection process. Back-door appointments / Regularisation / Permanent Absorption are made without following the recruitment rules and without any merit assessment and without following the rule of reservation. If such affairs are allowed to be continued uninterruptedly by the Courts and by the State, undoubtedly, the equality clause enunciated under the Constitution of India would be violated and result in a constitutional sin.
Paragraph 12The ill effects of irregular, illegal, and back-door appointments have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts across the country. Finally, the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, settled the principles. The said judgment has become the law of the land and is binding on all the parties. Few discretionary orders passed by the High Courts as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the facts of the particular case cannot be followed as a precedent for the purpose of granting the relief of regularisation and permanent absorption in a routine manner. Dehors such individual judgments by the Courts, the constitutional principles and the equal opportunity in public employments is to be considered by the Courts while dealing with the facts of a particular case.
Paragraph 13The legal principles for appointment to public posts are settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Even the one-time measure permitted in paragraph 53 of the said judgment cannot be invoked or perpetuated so as to cure the irregularity or illegality in public appointments. Para 54 of the said judgment, in unequivocal terms, reiterates that “those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held hereunder, will stand denuded of their status as precedents”. The principles laid down by the Constitution Bench is binding on all, across the Country. Any judgment running counter to the principles settled by the Constitution Bench is to be confined in respect of the facts of that particular case and cannot be followed as a precedent so as to grant the relief of regularisation and permanent absorption in other cases. In the event of diluting the mandate of equal opportunity in public employments, then, again, it would result in encouraging irregularity and illegality and back door appointments to public posts. This exactly is the reason why the Constitution Bench in Para 54 of its judgment reiterates that the principles are to be scrupulously followed so as to ensure and implement the noble constitutional principles of equal opportunity in public employments, through Constitutional Scheme of appointments.
Paragraph 18The power of the High Court in issuing such a direction has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Daya Lal and others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429. Para 8 of the said judgment reads as under:
Paragraph 20Pertinently, in respect of judicial administration, the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court settled the legal principles in the case of Renu and Others Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and Another, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 50. Para 34 of the said judgment reads as under:
Acts & Sections
Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 14 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 16 of the Constitution of IndiaRule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service RulesOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of Typist, Subordinate Court, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District, Pincode-614001 v. 1. The Registrar General, — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →