Is a policy regularising ad hoc employees valid where it merely extends an earlier withdrawn policy to those left out, on the same criteria?

Paragraph 18The object behind issuing these two Notifications for regularising the service of Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, who had been working on ad hoc/contractual/daily wage/work charged basis is evident from the Notifications itself. The same intended to cover such employees, who had been deprived of the benefit of the policy of regularisation dated 07.03.1996. The criteria prescribed was not in any manner watered down or deviated from the criteria required to be satisfied while seeking regular appointment. What is most relevant, in our view, is that such engagement should have been initially made on a sanctioned post and such engagement on the sanctioned post ought to be continuing even on the date of regularisation of service. This would clearly indicate that when such engagement on ad hoc basis was initially made, sanctioned posts were available and this position continued for a number of years so as to enable regularisation of services of the incumbents holding such posts. The criteria prescribed, therefore, is very much in tune with the criteria that would have otherwise been prescribed had the post been advertised for regular recruitment. We, therefore, find that the exercise of regularising the services of ad hoc employees, who had been left out from getting benefit of the earlier policy that was granted to some ad hoc employees was now being granted to the remaining ad hoc employees. It is not the case of the original petitioners before the High Court, who had challenged the aforesaid Notifications that all ad hoc employees, who were eligible to have their services regularised pursuant to the policy dated 07.03.1996, had already been regularised and that the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were intended to facilitate the regularisation of services of some ineligible ad hoc employees. There is no such material placed on record even to indicate that the beneficiaries of the regularisation policy vide Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were in fact not eligible to such benefit under the policy dated 07.03.1996. The exercise undertaken by the General Administration Department in issuing these Notifications, therefore, cannot be questioned on the ground of arbitrariness, illegality or as being the outcome of a mala fide exercise of executive power. These relevant aspects do not appear to have been gone into by the High Court while holding otherwise.

Paragraph 20Thus, given the object behind issuing the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014, which was primarily to grant the benefit of regularisation to those remaining Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ ad hoc, contractual/daily wage employees, which benefit had been granted to similarly placed employees pursuant to Notification dated 07.03.1996, we do not find any reason whatsoever to hold that the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were liable to be quashed as being arbitrary, illegally or contrary to the law laid down by this Court in its various decisions.