Can differential treatment in regularization of ad-hoc High Court staff appointed under the same statutory rules violate Article 14, justifying final directions under Article 142?

LawSikho
December 20, 2025
Category: Supreme Court of India

Summary

Category	Data
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Number	C.A. No.-000428-000428 – 2022
Diary Number	427/2016
Judge Name	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
Bench	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Precedent Value	Binding authority
Affirms	Equality principle under Article 14; power of Supreme Court under Article 142 in service disputes
Type of Law	Constitutional law; service law
Questions of Law	Whether similarly appointed ad-hoc employees can be treated differently in regularization without an intelligible basis. Whether Supreme Court can use Article 142 to grant final relief in such service disputes.
Ratio Decidendi	All appellants and others were appointed to the same Class III posts by the Chief Justice under identical statutory provisions (Rules 8(a)(i), 41, 45 of the 1976 Rules). The High Court’s Committee drew artificial distinctions based on “ad-hoc” labels and unstated rule-making power, resulting in selective regularization. Such differential treatment lacks any rational classification and violates Article 14’s mandate that equals be treated equally. Subsequent amendments merging cadres cannot justify perpetuating discrimination against the appellants. In exceptional service matters where similarly placed employees have been granted identical benefits, the Supreme Court may invoke Article 142 to issue final directions for reinstatement and regularization. Complete justice requires reinstating appellants, regularizing their service after one year of probation, and granting consequential benefits (except unearned salaries).
Judgments Relied Upon	State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 (not followed by Division Bench and implicitly overruled as to application of Rules 8, 41, 45 appointments)
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court	Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution Supreme Court’s inherent power under Article 142 Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (Rules 8(a)(i), 41, 45)
Facts as Summarised by the Court	The appellants were engaged ad-hoc (Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks) by Allahabad High Court under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 & 45 of the 1976 Rules. A panel‐constituted Committee in 2012 recommended regularization of many identically appointed staff but excluded the appellants on superficial grounds. Similarly placed employees were regularized and promoted, while appellants were denied parity, despite performing identical duties for over a decade.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All High Courts, all subordinate courts and administrative authorities in government service matters
Persuasive For	Other High Courts and tribunals dealing with service-rule discrimination; central and state governments
Overrules	High Court judgments dated 14.10.2015 and 30.10.2015 in the present appeals
Distinguishes	Full Bench judgment in In Re: Regularization of Class IV Employees (AHC Full Bench 2013)
Follows	Equality doctrine under Article 14; power of Supreme Court under Article 142 for final relief in exceptional service cases

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Apex Court confirms that all appointees under identical statutory provisions (Rules 8(a)(i), 41, 45 of 1976 Rules) must be treated equally for regularization.
“Ad hoc” label or bespoke stipulations in appointment letters cannot justify withholding modern regularization when the recruitment channel is uniform.
The Supreme Court will exercise its Article 142 powers to issue final directions in service disputes involving manifest discrimination.
High Courts must ensure non-arbitrariness and reasoned classification when dealing with regularization of staff.
Lawyers can cite this decision to challenge selective regularization and secure reinstatement with back benefits for similarly placed employees.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

Common Recruitment Channel: All affected employees were appointed by the Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 & 45 of the 1976 Rules, bypassing formal competitive selection.
Committee’s Categorization: The High Court’s Committee (2012) divided employees into three categories (A, B, C) based on whether appointment letters labeled them “ad-hoc” or contained exam-stipulations, and recommended only two categories for regularization.
Lack of Rational Distinction: The Supreme Court found no intelligible differentia: all categories shared identical appointment authority and job duties; the “ad-hoc” nomenclature alone could not justify differential treatment.
Violation of Article 14: Arbitrary exclusion of appellants from parity with regularized co‐employees was struck down as constituting inequality and lack of reasonableness under Article 14.
Rejection of Post-hoc Rule Changes: Amendments merging the Routine Grade Clerk cadre into a Computer Assistant cadre in 2019 cannot legitimize past discriminatory regularization decisions.
Use of Article 142: Given the decade-long service and settled expectation of regularization among similarly placed staff, the Court invoked its inherent power under Article 142 to render complete justice by issuing final operative directions.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

Appointments were lawfully made under Rule 8(a)(i) read with Rules 41 & 45 of the 1976 Rules; not casual or irregular.
Identically appointed colleagues were regularized—denying them parity violates Articles 14, 16, 21.
Remand for reconsideration after two decades would perpetuate injustice; Supreme Court should issue final directions.

Respondent

Administrative discretion over staffing and non-competitive appointments precludes any right to regularization.
Ad-hoc appointments do not create entitlement to confirmation; age-relaxation for future exams is adequate remedy.
The Division Bench’s 2011 directions have been implicitly overruled by a 2013 Full Bench decision on regularization rules.

Factual Background

Appellants were engaged on Class III posts (Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants / Routine Grade Clerks) by the Allahabad High Court on “ad-hoc” terms between 2004–2005 under the Chief Justice’s power in Rules 8(a)(i), 41 & 45 of the 1976 Rules. A 2012 Committee recommended regularization of numerous similarly appointed staff but excluded the appellants based solely on appointment-letter labels. The High Court regularized other cohorts, prompting the appellants to seek parity; Single Judge and Division Bench refused relief, leading to these appeals.

Statutory Analysis

Rules 8(a)(i), 41 & 45, 1976 Rules: Empower the Chief Justice to recruit directly or “in any manner” for Class III posts and exercise residuary powers over recruitment, confirmation.
Article 229, Constitution of India: Governs framing of High Court service rules, requiring Governor’s approval for pay/leave changes.
U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments Rules, 1979: Cut-off date of 30 June 1998; held inapplicable to appellants appointed post-2004.
Article 14: Equality and non-arbitrariness mandate.
Article 142: Apex Court’s power to pass complete justice directions in exceptional cases.

Procedural Innovations

Supreme Court’s use of Article 142 to grant final relief in a service dispute marked by clear discrimination, rather than remanding to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Directions for reinstatement, probation-based regularization after one year, and grant of consequential benefits (seniority, promotion, pay fixation) within a fixed eight-week timeline.

Alert Indicators

🚨 Breaking Precedent – Apex Court sets aside High Court’s selective regularization.
✔️ Precedent Followed – Equality under Article 14; inherent power under Article 142.
🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Diverges from AHC Full Bench decision on Regularization (2013).