Service Law — Regularization of Contract/Temporary Staff in Special Magistrate Courts — Andhra Pradesh (Regularization of Appointments) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994) — Scope — Vacancy requirement — Illegality v. Irregularity — Umadevi principle — Judicial Establishments within Act’s ambit — Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
Petitioners employed on contract basis to staff Special Magistrate Courts sought parity/regularization akin to persons earlier regularized pursuant to Division Bench orders (W.P.Nos.32917 & 36206 of 2022). Held, the 1994 Act applies to establishments created under State law (including District Courts); Section 7 bars regularisation of temporary/daily-wage appointments where permanent posts are not involved. No permanent posts exist in Special Magistrate Courts; regularisation against non-existent permanent vacancies is impermissible and would perpetuate indirect recruitment circumventing statutory selection processes. Distinction drawn between illegal and irregular appointments (Umadevi): even treating appointments as irregular, the statutory bar and absence of vacancies preclude regularisation. Writ petitions dismissed.
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
Act 2 of 1994 applies to District Courts and their establishments because District Courts are created under State legislation and fall within the definitions in the Act (Preamble and Section 2(vi)(d)); consequently, the Act’s prohibitions on regularisation of temporary/daily-wage appointments (Section 7) govern staffing of Special Magistrate Courts.
-
Regularisation requires existence of permanent posts and recruitment against vacancies; where temporary staff were appointed to Courts that have no corresponding permanent posts, regularising such staff against permanent vacancies in regular courts (to which they were not originally appointed) is impermissible as it effects indirect recruitment and undermines merit-based selection.
-
Policy constraints and Umadevi do not mandate regularisation here. Even if some appointments are irregular (not illegal), statutory prohibition and absence of appropriate vacancies, together with risk of perpetuating ad-hoc recruitment, justify refusal to regularize by writ remedy.
ANALYSIS (Concise)
Facts & context
-
State sanctioned Special Magistrate Courts and filled staff posts by retired judicial-ministerial personnel or, failing that, by contract recruits. Petitioners are long-serving contract employees (some 12–13 years) seeking regularization after a division-bench precedent regularized a different cohort (Fast Track Courts employees).
-
Earlier Division-Bench orders (W.P.Nos.32917 & 36206 of 2022) and subsequent Supreme Court dismissal produced regularisation for that cohort; petitioners seek parity.
Legal issues
-
Whether Act 2 of 1994 applies to judicial establishments and thus bars regularization of temporary appointments.
-
Whether the petitioners’ appointments are illegal or irregular and whether Umadevi principle requires or permits regularization.
-
Whether regularization against permanent vacancies in regular courts is permissible.
Court’s reasoning
-
The Court reads the Preamble and Section 2(vi)(d) of Act 2 of 1994 expansively to include District Courts (created under State law); therefore the Act’s prohibitions apply to the instant appointments.
-
There are no permanent posts corresponding to Special Magistrate Courts; regularization into non-existent posts is not tenable.
-
Regularizing temporary staff against vacancies in regular courts would amount to indirect recruitment without open selection, undermining merit-based process and risking a perpetual cycle of ad-hoc hiring and subsequent regularizations.
-
The Court declines to examine in detail whether the appointments were illegal or irregular because, even assuming irregularity, statutory bar and absence of suitable posts preclude relief on writ jurisdiction.
Disposition
-
Writ petitions dismissed; no order as to costs.
Practical implications
-
Administrative regularisation of temporary contract staff in judicial/other State establishments must respect the statutory scheme (Act 2 of 1994) and may require legislative or executive action (creation of permanent posts and open recruitment) rather than judicial fiat by way of writs directing absorption.
-
A prior favourable decision for one cohort does not create an automatic entitlement for other cohorts if materially different statutory or structural conditions exist.
