Regularisation Policy Is Valid Only When It Protects Eligible Employees Left Out of an Earlier Lawful Scheme, Not When It Future-Proofs Backdoor Appointments
Case Name: Madan Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 379
Date of Judgment/Order: 16 April 2026
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Held: The Supreme Court held that a regularisation policy may be sustained where it is intended to extend the benefit of an earlier lawful regularisation scheme to similarly situated eligible employees who were left out, provided they were engaged against sanctioned vacant posts, possessed the prescribed qualifications, and satisfied the stated criteria. However, a policy which seeks to regularise ad hoc employees who were not initially engaged through public advertisement or interview, and which uses a future cut-off date to protect appointments that could otherwise be filled by regular recruitment, is arbitrary and illegal. The Court therefore upheld the validity of the Haryana Government Notifications dated 16 June 2014 and 18 June 2014, but struck down the Notifications dated 7 July 2014 as they sought to regularise appointments lacking the safeguards of open recruitment.
Summary: The dispute concerned Haryana Government policies for regularisation of Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees working on contractual, ad hoc, daily wage or work-charged basis. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had quashed the Notifications dated 16 June 2014, 18 June 2014 and 7 July 2014, holding that they violated the law laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and amounted to regularising backdoor entries. The Supreme Court examined the nature of each policy separately. It found that the Notifications dated 16 June 2014 and 18 June 2014 were connected to the earlier regularisation policy dated 7 March 1996 and were intended to benefit eligible employees who had been left out due to withdrawal of that earlier policy. These Notifications required the employees to possess prescribed qualifications and to have been working against sanctioned vacant posts, and therefore could not be treated as arbitrary or illegal. However, the Notifications dated 7 July 2014 stood on a different footing because they sought to regularise employees who had not been engaged through advertisement or interview and also adopted a future cut-off date of 31 December 2018, thereby preventing regular recruitment to posts that should have been filled through open competition.
Decision: The Supreme Court partly modified the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 31 May 2018. It declared the Notifications dated 16 June 2014 and 18 June 2014 valid and restored the benefits flowing from them, subject to verification by the competent authority, including for similarly situated intervenors. It upheld the striking down of the Notifications dated 7 July 2014 as arbitrary and illegal, but in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, protected Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ ad hoc employees who had already secured benefit under those Notifications and were continuing in service, directing that they shall not be disturbed but shall be placed in the lowest pay scale applicable to the post held by them. The Court also permitted employees who had approached the High Court to take appropriate steps in accordance with the judgment and disposed of all appeals and pending applications with no order as to costs.