Long Service And Transparent Recruitment Merit Regularization Despite Absence Of Rules: Madras HC
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the Indian Maritime University (IMU) to regularize the services of eight contractual employees. The Court ruled that their appointments, though irregular, were not illegal as they were made through a transparent recruitment process including public advertisement and interviews. The...
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the Indian Maritime University (IMU) to regularize the services of eight contractual employees. The Court ruled that their appointments, though irregular, were not illegal as they were made through a transparent recruitment process including public advertisement and interviews. The Court emphasized that the absence of recruitment rules until 2015 and the employees' decade-long unblemished service warranted regularization, particularly given IMU's prior regularization of seven similarly situated workshop employees.
Background
The appellants are eight individuals holding various contract positions at IMU, including Junior Assistant, Research Assistant, and Clerk. Initially recruited on a temporary basis through a consolidated pay scheme, these appellants were appointed following an advertisement placed by IMU in August 2012. The advertisement specified requirements for postgraduates with specific skills in maritime research, report preparation, and computer proficiency. The appellants' employment, beginning between 2009 and 2011, was extended multiple times. Notably, recruitment rules to formalize the staffing process were only introduced in 2015, long after their initial hiring. In 2017, the appellants petitioned for regularization, arguing that their long, satisfactory service and the transparent recruitment process entitled them to permanent status. The appellants also highlighted the regularization of seven other IMU employees who, like them, were appointed on a temporary basis. In 2016, the Executive Council (EC) of IMU had recognized these seven employees as permanent, citing their continuous service, age, and limited future employment prospects.
Arguments
The appellants argued that their situation was directly comparable to the seven IMU workshop employees who had been regularized. Both groups were recruited under similar circumstances, with the appellants' services extending up to eleven years by the time of the appeal. They contended that the absence of recruitment rules at the time of their hiring did not render their appointments illegal or irregular. They also emphasized that they had served IMU consistently and without issues since their hiring.
Representing IMU, Senior Counsel Mr. R. Sankara Narayanan argued that the regularization granted to the seven workshop employees did not apply to the appellants, as they were appointed on consolidated pay with temporary contracts. He maintained that length of service alone did not confer a right to regularization, particularly when the appellants had failed subsequent recruitment tests held in 2017.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, the court found that the appellants' appointments were made following a public advertisement, with a process involving interviews that were both transparent and compliant with IMU's standards at the time. Although no recruitment rules existed when they were hired, the need to staff IMU from its inception in 2008 justified their appointments. The court held that insisting on recruitment rules for their employment would have effectively left IMU understaffed for seven years until the rules were framed. Secondly, the court noted that the appellants had provided “unblemished service” for over a decade, which attested to their essential role in IMU's operations. The court found that the consistent renewal of their contracts until 2020, even after some appellants failed the 2017 recruitment test, underscored their value to the university and indicated that IMU viewed their services as indispensable.
Thirdly, the court examined the regularization of the seven workshop employees and found that although their cases had some differences, the principles applied were similar. The appointments of those seven employees, initially recruited by the National Maritime Academy prior to its merger with IMU, had been regularized by the EC in recognition of their long service, age, and lack of alternative employment opportunities. The court observed that the appellants' circumstances were similar enough to justify regularization, as their recruitment was similarly transparent, and they had consistently performed satisfactorily.
Further, the court analyzed State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), which distinguished between illegal and irregular appointments. The court applied this distinction, concluding that the appellants' appointments were irregular, not illegal, because their selection followed due process, including public advertisement and interviews. The court also noted subsequent rulings, such as Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, which emphasized that the essence of employees' duties and their long, uninterrupted service could support regularization, particularly when appointments were not “backdoor entries”. Lastly, the court dismissed the argument that the appellants had waived their right to regularization by not challenging their 2020 termination orders. The appellants had filed their writ petitions in 2017, seeking regularization as soon as IMU started formal recruitment. This timely action demonstrated their proactive efforts to secure their employment status, and the subsequent termination was seen as part of the ongoing dispute over their regularization. Thus, the court allowed the writ appeals and set aside the earlier decision to dismiss their petitions. It directed IMU to regularize their services within four weeks, treating them as permanent employees.
Decided on: 29-10-2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 434
Case Title: G.Kulanchiyappan v Vice Chancellor, IMU
Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Vishnu Mohan
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. R. Sankara Narayanan (Senior Counsel), assisted by Mr. K. Srinivasamurthy