Supreme Court clarifies regularization of contract employees: University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 25 March 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 174

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

Can contract employees claim regularization, and what constitutes a fair selection process for them? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving the University of Delhi and its contract employees. The court clarified the extent to which contract employees can claim regularization and how their experience should be considered in the selection process. This judgment provides crucial guidance on the rights of contract employees and the obligations of employers. The bench consisted of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The University Grants Commission (UGC) imposed a ban on filling non-teaching posts on 31 August 1999. However, on 12 January 2011, the UGC sanctioned 255 Junior Assistant posts for the University of Delhi, leading to amendments in the 2008 Recruitment Rules. An advertisement for these posts was released on 6 November 2013. During the period between 2003 and 2013, the University had appointed approximately 300 Junior Assistants on a contract basis. The Delhi University Contract Employees Union filed a writ petition seeking regularization of these contract employees, payment of salaries at par with regular employees, and other benefits. A Single Judge of the High Court rejected the petition on 16 December 2013, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in *Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors.*

The contract employees, who also participated in the recruitment process of 6 November 2013, were given age relaxation, but only 10 out of 120 appointees were from the contract employees. The Union filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which ruled in their favor on 22 November 2016, directing the University to conduct a separate test for contract employees. The University then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court rejected the writ petition filed by the Union, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in *Umadevi*. The Single Judge held that the court cannot interfere with the regular selection process and that the University had rightly given age relaxation to the contract employees. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, allowed the appeal filed by the Union. The Division Bench directed the University to conduct a separate test for the contract employees, considering their experience and the date of acquiring their qualifications. The University then appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench. The Union also filed a separate appeal.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors.*, which dealt with the regularization of irregularly appointed employees. The Court in *Umadevi* held that appointments must be made through a regular recruitment process as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, it also provided for a one-time measure for regularizing employees who had worked for ten years or more in sanctioned posts without court orders. The relevant part of the judgment in *Umadevi* is as follows:

“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V . Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”

The judgment also considers the implications of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

Arguments

Arguments by the University of Delhi:

• The University argued that the directions of the Division Bench of the High Court were inconsistent with the law laid down in *Umadevi* and subsequent decisions.
• It contended that a separate test for contract employees would violate the principle of equal opportunity.
• The University submitted that it was already providing age relaxation and additional marks (up to 10) to contract employees for their service, which was a fair measure.
• The University emphasized that the total marks for the test would be 300, and 10 marks would mean 3.33% advantage for the contract employees.

Arguments by the Delhi University Contract Employees Union:

• The Union argued that the contract employees had served the University for many years and their experience should be duly considered.
• It contended that testing contract employees on the same standards as new applicants would deprive them of a fair opportunity.
• The Union relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court where regularization was granted to employees with long service, even after the *Umadevi* judgment. These cases include *State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Kesari and others*, *State of Gujarat and others vs. PWD Employees Union and others*, *Nihal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others*, *Sheo Narain Nagar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others*, and *Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others*.
• The Union submitted that the contract employees’ initial appointments were irregular, not illegal, and they possessed the requisite qualifications.

The core of the Union’s argument was that the contract employees, having served for many years, deserved a fair chance at regularization, and their experience should be a significant factor in the selection process.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the court can be summarized as follows:

1. Whether the directions of the Division Bench of the High Court to conduct a separate test for contract employees were consistent with the law laid down in *Umadevi*.
2. To what extent the experience of contract employees should be considered in the selection process for regular appointments.
3. Whether the contract employees were entitled to regularization of their services.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities while arriving at its decision:

Cases:

• Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors. [Supreme Court of India] – This case laid down the principles regarding regularization of irregularly appointed employees.
• Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Ors. [Supreme Court of India] – This case reiterated the principles laid down in *Umadevi* and emphasized the need for regular recruitment processes.
• State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Kesari and others [Supreme Court of India] – This case clarified the concept of a one-time measure for regularization.
• State of Gujarat and others vs. PWD Employees Union and others [Supreme Court of India] – This case also dealt with regularization of contract employees.
• Nihal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others [Supreme Court of India] – This case considered the regularization of employees with long service.
• Sheo Narain Nagar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [Supreme Court of India] – This case discussed the regularization of employees who had worked for many years.
• Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others [Supreme Court of India] – This case dealt with the application of the one-time measure for regularization in the context of a newly created state.
• S.V. Narayanappa [Supreme Court of India] – Referred to in *Umadevi* for the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments.
• R.N. Nanjundappa [Supreme Court of India] – Referred to in *Umadevi* for the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments.
• B.N. Nagarajan [Supreme Court of India] – Referred to in *Umadevi* for the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments.

Legal Provisions:

• Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India – These articles guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied heavily on *Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors.* [Supreme Court of India], emphasizing that it is the definitive authority on regularization of irregularly appointed employees. The court followed the principle that appointments must be made through a regular recruitment process. The Court also used *Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Ors.* [Supreme Court of India] to reinforce the importance of regular recruitment and to reject the concept of automatic absorption of contract employees. The other cases cited by the Union were distinguished on the basis that they involved employees who had completed more than 10 years of service and were considered as a one-time measure. The court used *State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Kesari and others* [Supreme Court of India] to understand the concept of a one-time measure for regularization.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance the rights of contract employees with the constitutional mandate for regular recruitment processes. The court acknowledged the long service of the contract employees and the experience they had gained, but it also emphasized that regularization could not be granted in violation of the principles laid down in *Umadevi*. The court aimed to provide a fair opportunity to the contract employees by giving them age relaxation and additional marks based on their service, while ensuring that the selection process remained competitive and open to all eligible candidates.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that a separate test should be conducted for the contract employees, but rejected it as it would violate the principle of equal opportunity and go against the law laid down in *Umadevi*. The final decision was reached by modifying the University’s proposal to give more weightage to longer service, thereby ensuring a fair and competitive selection process.

The court held that while the contract employees were not entitled to regularization, they should be given a fair opportunity to compete for regular positions. This was achieved by providing age relaxation and additional marks based on their years of service. The court also emphasized that the selection process should be open to all eligible candidates, and the contract employees should not be given preferential treatment that would violate the principles of equal opportunity.

“The contract employees in the present case cannot, therefore, claim the relief of regularization in terms of paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi.”

“Though the benefit of regularization cannot be granted, a window of opportunity must be given to them to compete with the available talent through public advertisement.”

“The modality suggested by the University, on the other hand, will give them adequate chance and benefit to appear in the ensuing selection.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The bench consisted of two judges, and both agreed on the final decision and directions.

The court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of *Umadevi*, which clearly stated that regularization could not be granted unless there was a one-time measure for those who had worked for more than 10 years. The court also considered the constitutional mandate for regular recruitment processes and the need to provide equal opportunity to all eligible candidates. The court’s decision to modify the University’s proposal for additional marks was a way to balance the rights of contract employees with the need to maintain a competitive selection process.

The implications of this judgment are that contract employees, who have not completed 10 years of service, cannot claim regularization. However, employers are obligated to provide a fair opportunity to these employees to compete for regular positions. The judgment also clarifies that experience should be considered in the selection process, but it should not be the sole factor, and the selection process must remain open and competitive.

The judgment did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. It primarily reiterated the principles laid down in *Umadevi* and clarified how they should be applied in cases involving contract employees. The court’s decision to modify the University’s proposal for additional marks was a practical way to balance the rights of contract employees with the need to maintain a competitive selection process.

Key Takeaways

• Contract employees are not entitled to regularization unless they meet the criteria laid down in *Umadevi* (10 years of service in a sanctioned post without court orders).
• Employers must provide a fair opportunity to contract employees to compete for regular positions.
• Experience of contract employees should be considered by giving them additional marks in the selection process.
• Selection processes must remain open and competitive, and preferential treatment cannot be given to contract employees that would violate the principles of equal opportunity.
• The judgment clarifies that the principles laid down in *Umadevi* continue to be the guiding principles for regularization of irregularly appointed employees.

The judgment is likely to impact future cases involving contract employees by clarifying the extent to which they can claim regularization and how their experience should be considered in the selection process. It also reinforces the need for regular recruitment processes and the importance of maintaining equal opportunity in public employment.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the University of Delhi to provide the following benefits to the contract employees:

• Age relaxation without any qualification.
• Additional marks based on their years of service, with a maximum of 18 marks.
  • Employees engaged in 2011 to be given 10 marks.
  • One additional mark for every additional year of service, up to a maximum of 8 additional marks.
  • For example, employees engaged in 2010 would get 11 marks, and those engaged since 2003 would get 18 marks.
• The public notice for the selection process should explicitly state that the advantage in terms of the court’s order would be conferred on the contract employees.
• All contract employees should be allowed to apply for the selection process within the next four weeks, and the test should be conducted three months after the receipt of applications.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that contract employees are not entitled to regularization unless they meet the criteria laid down in *Umadevi*. However, they are entitled to a fair opportunity to compete for regular positions, with their experience being considered through additional marks in the selection process. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in *Umadevi* and clarifies how they should be applied in cases involving contract employees. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment provides a practical approach to balance the rights of contract employees with the need to maintain a competitive selection process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union clarifies that contract employees cannot claim regularization unless they have worked for ten years or more in sanctioned posts without court orders, as per the *Umadevi* judgment. However, the court directed the University to provide age relaxation and additional marks based on their years of service to ensure a fair opportunity for these employees to compete for regular positions. The judgment strikes a balance between the rights of contract employees and the constitutional mandate for regular recruitment, emphasizing that while experience should be considered, the selection process must remain competitive and open to all eligible candidates.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Contract Employees
• Regularization
• Recruitment Process
• Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors.
• Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Category:

• Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: Can I, as a contract employee, claim regularization after this judgment?

A: No, unless you have worked for ten years or more in a sanctioned post without any court orders, you cannot claim regularization based on this judgment. The Supreme Court has reiterated the principles laid down in *Umadevi*.

Q: What benefits am I entitled to as a contract employee?

A: You are entitled to age relaxation and additional marks in the selection process based on your years of service. The longer you have worked, the more marks you will receive, up to a maximum of 18.

Q: Will I be given a separate test for regularization?

A: No, you will not be given a separate test. You will have to compete in an open selection process along with other eligible candidates. However, you will be given additional marks based on your service.

Q: How will my experience be considered in the selection process?

A: Your experience will be considered by giving you additional marks based on your years of service. This will give you an advantage over other candidates.

Q: Does this judgment mean that all contract employees will be regularized?

A: No, this judgment does not mean that all contract employees will be regularized. It only provides a fair opportunity for contract employees to compete for regular positions. The selection process will remain open and competitive.