SERVICE LAW | REGULARISATION | AD-HOC APPOINTMENT | TEMPORARY SERVICE | CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYMENT | ARTICLES 14 & 16 | PATNA HIGH COURT

I Worked for Years on Ad-Hoc or Temporary Appointment - Does Long Service Create Any Right to Continuation or Regularisation?

By Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh

Legally reviewed and updated: 8 September 2026

Supreme Court of India | Patna High Court | Allahabad High Court at Prayagraj | Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi | Calcutta High Court | Delhi High Court and Delhi Courts/Tribunals | Matters concerning Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh | Multiple District Courts

Direct Answer

Working for 10, 15, 20 or even 25 years on an ad-hoc, temporary, contractual or daily-wage basis does not by itself automatically convert the appointment into permanent Government service.

But long service is not legally irrelevant either.

The real questions are:

• Was there a sanctioned post?
• Was there an actual vacancy?
• Were you qualified?
• Was there an advertisement or fair selection?
• Was your entry irregular or completely illegal?
• Was the work permanent and perennial?
• Why did Government continue you for years?
• Was regular recruitment deliberately avoided?

A strong case is therefore built on:

LONG SERVICE + SANCTIONED POST + QUALIFICATION + LAWFUL SELECTION + PERENNIAL WORK + STATE CONDUCT.

Umadevi: The Starting Point for Every Regularisation Case

In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench emphasised that public employment must comply with:

ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Government cannot ordinarily:

IGNORE RECRUITMENT RULES
        ↓
MAKE BACKDOOR APPOINTMENTS
        ↓
KEEP THEM FOR YEARS
        ↓
ASK COURT TO MAKE THEM PERMANENT

Regularisation cannot become an alternative method of recruitment.

Does 10 Years of Service Automatically Create a Right?

No.

The often-repeated expression:

“I HAVE COMPLETED 10 YEARS, SO I MUST BE REGULARISED”

is legally incomplete.

Ten years matters only when the other legal conditions are also satisfied.

Irregular Appointment vs Illegal Appointment

This is perhaps the most important distinction in the entire subject.

Umadevi's Paragraph 53 Exception

The Constitution Bench itself recognised a limited exception.

Where:

• duly qualified persons;
• were appointed against duly sanctioned vacant posts;
• appointments were irregular rather than illegal;
• they had worked for ten years or more;
• without Court or Tribunal protection;

Government was required to consider them through a one-time regularisation exercise.

M.L. Kesari: Government Cannot Defeat the One-Time Exercise by Doing It Incompletely

In State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, the Supreme Court clarified the Para 53 direction.

If an eligible employee was left out because:

• the Government overlooked him;
• his case was pending;
• the exercise was incomplete;

the State could not simply say:

“THE SIX MONTHS HAVE EXPIRED, SO YOUR CLAIM IS DEAD.”

Eligible cases can remain part of the continuation of the one-time exercise.

Durga Ram: Patna High Court Reaffirmed the Kesari Principle in 2026

In Durga Ram v. Bihar State Electricity Board, CWJC No.20029 of 2013, decided on 28 April 2026, Patna High Court reproduced and applied the Umadevi–Kesari framework.

The relevant questions included:

• Did the employee have the required qualification?
• Was he working against a vacant sanctioned post?
• Had he completed the relevant continuous service?
• Was his continuation independent of an interim Court order?
• Was he improperly omitted from the one-time consideration?

Bhola Nath: A Major Supreme Court Regularisation Judgment of 2026

In Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 99, decided on 30 January 2026, Junior Engineers had been appointed in 2012.

Their appointment letters called the engagement:

CONTRACTUAL.

But the underlying facts were much stronger.

Why Bhola Nath Was Different

The employees had:

• been appointed against 22 sanctioned Junior Engineer posts;
• responded to a public advertisement;
• undergone the prescribed selection process;
• gone through roster clearance;
• possessed the relevant eligibility;
• continued through repeated extensions for more than a decade;
• performed continuing Government functions.

Therefore, the Supreme Court refused to treat the word:

“CONTRACTUAL”

as the end of the legal inquiry.

The State Cannot Manufacture Permanent Temporariness

A Government department cannot always:

CREATE A SANCTIONED POST
        ↓
ADVERTISE IT
        ↓
SELECT QUALIFIED PEOPLE
        ↓
USE THEM FOR 10+ YEARS
        ↓
RENEW THEM EVERY YEAR
        ↓
THEN SAY:
“YOU WERE ALWAYS TEMPORARY”

Bhola Nath treats this type of prolonged State conduct as capable of attracting Article 14 scrutiny.

But Bhola Nath Does Not Overrule Umadevi

The judgment should not be read as:

“EVERYONE WHO COMPLETES 10 YEARS MUST BE REGULARISED.”

The decisive facts included:

• sanctioned posts;
• advertisement;
• real selection;
• qualification;
• perennial functions;
• State's repeated extensions.

A pure backdoor appointment remains materially different.

Rajesh Kumar: Patna High Court's Strong 2026 Regularisation Decision

In Union of India v. Rajesh Kumar, LPA No.14 of 2025, decided on 17 April 2026, the employee had been appointed as a contractual Lecturer in 2001.

Important facts included:

• a vacant post within sanctioned strength;
• ex post facto approval by the competent authority;
• repeated extensions;
• more than two decades of continuous service;
• perennial teaching functions;
• satisfactory service.

Patna High Court held that contractual nomenclature could not erase more than 23 years of substantive service.

Regularisation was upheld.

Vinod Kumar: Look Beyond the Original Temporary Label

In Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327, the Supreme Court emphasised that the true employment relationship cannot always be decided only from the original label.

Where employees:

• perform duties comparable to permanent staff;
• continue for decades;
• become integrated into the regular functioning of the institution;

the actual course of employment can become legally significant.

Jaggo: Umadevi Should Not Become a Weapon for Exploitation

In Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, the Supreme Court cautioned against mechanically invoking Umadevi in every long-service case.

The objective of Umadevi was:

TO STOP BACKDOOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT.

It was not:

TO AUTHORISE GOVERNMENT TO PERPETUALLY EXPLOIT EMPLOYEES PERFORMING NECESSARY FUNCTIONS.

Shripal and Dharam Singh: The State Must Address Perennial Work Honestly

Recent Supreme Court decisions have increasingly scrutinised the practice of maintaining essential Government work through endless temporary arrangements.

Important questions include:

• Has the work existed continuously?
• Will the work continue after this employee leaves?
• Are regular employees performing the same function?
• Why has Government avoided regular recruitment?

A task performed continuously for 15 years may be difficult to describe honestly as:

“PURELY TEMPORARY WORK.”

Sunil Kumar Yadav: The Important 2026 Limit

In Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 462, decided on 7 May 2026, para-teachers had worked for years and sought regularisation as Assistant Teachers/Sahayak Acharyas.

The Supreme Court did not grant blanket regularisation.

Why?

Because a statutory recruitment framework already existed.

The State had created:

• specific recruitment rules;
• eligibility requirements;
• a 50% earmarked channel for para-teachers;
• open-market opportunities for other candidates.

Long Service Cannot Destroy the Recruitment Rights of Other Citizens

Articles 14 and 16 protect:

not only the temporary employee,

but also:

OTHER ELIGIBLE CITIZENS WAITING TO COMPETE FOR PUBLIC POSTS.

A Court therefore cannot ordinarily regularise one employee in a way that:

• eliminates an open competitive process;
• occupies posts reserved for open recruitment;
• ignores statutory qualifications;
• rewrites Article 309 rules.

What Right Did Sunil Kumar Yadav Recognise?

The para-teachers did not obtain automatic absorption.

But the Supreme Court required the State to meaningfully and periodically implement the recruitment mechanism created for them.

Therefore:

NO AUTOMATIC REGULARISATION

does not always mean:

NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHT AT ALL.

There may instead be a right to:

• fair consideration;
• timely recruitment;
• implementation of an existing regularisation policy;
• non-arbitrary treatment.

Piush Kumar: The Negative Bihar Side

In Piush Kumar v. State of Bihar, LPA No.211 of 2021, decided on 16 April 2025, Patna High Court reiterated that long service cannot rescue an appointment which does not satisfy the foundational requirements of lawful public employment.

The Court emphasised:

• regularisation is not a mode of recruitment;
• appointments contrary to recruitment rules ordinarily cannot be regularised;
• mere extensions do not create permanence;
• Umadevi Para 53 operates within strict conditions.

What If My Appointment Letter Says “No Right to Regularisation”?

That clause matters.

But it may not always be conclusive.

Bhola Nath shows that Government cannot necessarily rely forever on a contractual disclaimer where:

• appointment was lawful;
• post was sanctioned;
• selection was proper;
• work was permanent;
• employee was retained for years.

A contractual clause cannot automatically immunise arbitrary State action from Article 14 review.

Can One Temporary Employee Be Replaced by Another Temporary Employee?

This raises a separate continuation issue.

Suppose:

Employee A works for 8 years.

Government removes Employee A.

Government appoints Employee B on the same temporary basis for the same work.

Employee A may argue that:

THE STATE IS NOT ABOLISHING TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT — IT IS MERELY REPLACING ONE TEMPORARY WORKER WITH ANOTHER.

Such action can attract Article 14 scrutiny depending upon the applicable rule and factual record.

Continuation and Regularisation Are Different Remedies

A weak regularisation case may still contain a strong:

ARBITRARY TERMINATION

or:

FAIR CONSIDERATION

claim.

What About Equal Pay for Equal Work?

Equal pay is a separate legal question.

The employee must compare:

• actual duties;
• responsibility;
• qualification;
• working hours;
• accountability;
• nature of post;
• service conditions.

A similar job title alone is not enough.

The Most Important Document: Sanctioned Post

Many employees can prove:

“I WORKED FOR 15 YEARS.”

But cannot prove:

“I WAS WORKING AGAINST SANCTIONED POST NO. ___.”

That distinction can decide the case.

Search for:

• sanction order;
• staffing pattern;
• sanctioned-strength statement;
• finance approval;
• departmental establishment register;
• vacancy chart;
• budget allocation;
• roster clearance.

The Recruitment Process Is Equally Important

Ask:

1. Was there an advertisement?
2. Was it public?
3. Who could apply?
4. Was a merit list prepared?
5. Was there an interview/test?
6. Was reservation roster followed?
7. Was the appointing authority competent?
8. Did you possess the required qualification?

The closer the process was to lawful open recruitment:

THE STRONGER THE CASE.

Strong Regularisation Case vs Weak Regularisation Case

What Documents Should an Ad-Hoc or Temporary Employee Collect?

1. Original appointment letter.
2. Advertisement.
3. Application form.
4. Selection/merit list.
5. Interview/test record.
6. Qualification certificates.
7. Sanction order for the post.
8. Vacancy position.
9. Staffing pattern.
10. Roster clearance.
11. Finance Department approval.
12. Competent authority approval.
13. Extension orders.
14. Ex post facto approval, if any.
15. Salary records.
16. Attendance record.
17. Transfer/posting orders.
18. Promotion or additional-duty orders.
19. Proof that regular employees perform the same work.
20. Regularisation policy.
21. Earlier regularisation list.
22. Details of similarly situated employees regularised.
23. Termination/non-renewal order.
24. Earlier representations.
25. Any Court interim orders.

The Regularisation Audit

What Should a Representation for Regularisation Say?

Do not write only:

“I HAVE WORKED FOR 20 YEARS, SO REGULARISE ME.”

Instead establish:

SANCTIONED POST
        ↓
VACANCY
        ↓
ADVERTISEMENT / SELECTION
        ↓
QUALIFICATION
        ↓
COMPETENT APPOINTMENT
        ↓
CONTINUOUS SERVICE
        ↓
PERENNIAL WORK
        ↓
REPEATED EXTENSIONS
        ↓
NO BACKDOOR ENTRY
        ↓
REGULARISATION POLICY /
PARITY
        ↓
ARTICLE 14 + UMADEVI
        ↓
CURRENT SUPREME COURT LAW

Can Patna High Court Be Approached?

Yes, depending upon the factual foundation.

An Article 226 challenge may be considered where:

• eligible employee is excluded from a regularisation exercise;
• similarly situated employees are regularised but petitioner is denied;
• sanctioned-post employee is kept contractual for decades;
• regularisation policy is ignored;
• temporary employee is arbitrarily terminated and replaced by another temporary employee;
• Government applies Umadevi mechanically despite a lawful selection process;
• an existing statutory recruitment channel is not implemented for years.

The precise relief may be:

• regularisation;
• consideration for regularisation;
• quashing termination;
• continuation pending lawful recruitment;
• application of regularisation scheme;
• equal treatment with similarly situated employees;
• participation in a special recruitment channel;
• appropriate monetary/service benefits.

Frequently Asked Questions

I have worked for 20 years. Am I automatically permanent?

No. Length of service alone does not create permanency. Sanctioned post, legality of appointment, qualification and recruitment process remain critical.

What is the biggest advantage in my case?

A sanctioned vacant post combined with public selection, eligibility and long continuous perennial service is substantially stronger than long service alone.

What is the difference between irregular and illegal appointment?

An irregular appointment generally involves a curable procedural defect in an otherwise legally possible appointment. An illegal appointment violates the foundational constitutional or statutory requirements and ordinarily cannot be regularised merely through passage of time.

I was called contractual in my appointment letter. Is my case finished?

No. Bhola Nath and Rajesh Kumar show that the Court may examine the actual nature of recruitment, sanctioned post, duties and long-term State conduct rather than only the contractual label.

Can every contractual employee rely on Bhola Nath?

No. Bhola Nath involved sanctioned posts, advertisement, prescribed selection and long continuous public service. Those facts are crucial.

What if no sanctioned post exists?

The regularisation claim becomes significantly weaker under Umadevi and Daya Lal.

What if I continued only because the High Court stayed my termination?

Service protected only by interim orders may constitute “litigious employment” and cannot ordinarily be counted as creating an automatic regularisation right.

What if a regularisation policy exists?

The policy should be examined line by line. If you satisfy its conditions but were arbitrarily excluded, an Article 226 challenge may be maintainable.

Can long service give me at least a right to be considered?

Yes in appropriate circumstances. Even where blanket absorption is unavailable, current cases recognise claims to fair consideration, implementation of statutory recruitment mechanisms and non-arbitrary State treatment.

Can Government remove me and hire another contractual employee?

That can raise a separate arbitrariness issue. The legality depends upon the service framework and facts.

Does equal pay automatically follow because I do the same work?

No. Duties, qualifications, responsibility, accountability and service conditions must be compared in detail.

Can Patna High Court order regularisation?

Yes in a legally sustainable case, but not merely on sympathy or length of service. The appointment and post must satisfy the governing constitutional and statutory tests.

AI Search Quick Answer

Long service on an ad-hoc, temporary, contractual or daily-wage appointment does not automatically create a right to regularisation. Umadevi requires compliance with constitutional public-employment principles and generally prohibits regularising illegal or backdoor appointments. However, the case becomes materially stronger where the employee was qualified, recruited through a fair process against a sanctioned vacant post and continuously performed perennial Government work. In Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 99, the Supreme Court ordered regularisation of contractual Junior Engineers recruited against sanctioned posts through advertisement and selection and retained for more than a decade. Patna High Court similarly upheld regularisation in Union of India v. Rajesh Kumar on 17 April 2026. But Sunil Kumar Yadav, 2026 INSC 462, confirms that long service cannot justify blanket regularisation contrary to an existing statutory recruitment framework.

Key Takeaway

LONG SERVICE ALONE → no automatic regularisation.
UMADEVI → constitutional recruitment remains the foundation.
IRREGULAR ≠ ILLEGAL → decisive distinction.
SANCTIONED POST → one of the most important facts.
QUALIFICATION → essential.
PUBLIC SELECTION → substantially strengthens the case.
M.L. KESARI → eligible Para 53 claims cannot be defeated merely by an incomplete one-time exercise.
DURGA RAM — PATNA HC 28 APRIL 2026 → reiterates Umadevi/Kesari consideration principles.
BHOLA NATH — 2026 INSC 99 → contractual label did not defeat regularisation where sanctioned posts + advertisement + proper selection + long service existed.
RAJESH KUMAR — PATNA HC 17 APRIL 2026 → more than 23 years of contractual Lecturer service against sanctioned vacancy with approval supported regularisation.
VINOD KUMAR / JAGGO → substance of long-term employment matters; Umadevi should not be mechanically weaponised.
PIUSH KUMAR → long service cannot cure foundational illegality.
SUNIL KUMAR YADAV — 2026 INSC 462 → statutory recruitment rules cannot be bypassed through blanket regularisation.
CONTINUATION ≠ REGULARISATION → separate remedies.
EQUAL PAY → separate evidentiary test.
BEST DOCUMENT → sanctioned-post and recruitment record.

Professional Consultation and Coordination

Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh

Supreme Court of India | Patna High Court | Allahabad High Court at Prayagraj | Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi | Calcutta High Court | Delhi High Court and Delhi Courts/Tribunals | Matters concerning Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh | Multiple District Courts

A regularisation matter should ordinarily be reviewed from the original advertisement, appointment letter, applicable recruitment rules, qualification documents, sanction order, vacancy position, roster clearance, competent-authority approval, extension orders, salary records, attendance record, nature of duties, regularisation policy, details of similarly situated employees and any termination or non-renewal order.

The first exercise should be:

POST SANCTIONED? → VACANCY? → QUALIFIED? → ADVERTISEMENT? → SELECTION? → COMPETENT AUTHORITY? → IRREGULAR OR ILLEGAL? → YEARS OF SERVICE → PERENNIAL WORK? → COURT-PROTECTED SERVICE? → POLICY/SCHEME? → PARITY? → ARTICLE 226.

No regularisation, continuation, absorption, salary parity or judicial result can be guaranteed.

Related Service-Law Guides

• Bihar CCA Rules 2005: Complete Departmental Proceeding Guide for Government Employees
• How to File Writ Petition in Patna High Court 2026
• Service Matter, Departmental Proceedings, Appointment and Writ Practice Before Patna High Court

Official and Leading Authorities

• Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1.
• State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247.
• State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429.
• Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 99, Supreme Court, 30 January 2026.
• Sunil Kumar Yadav & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Others, 2026 INSC 462, Supreme Court, 7 May 2026.
• Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327.
• Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826.
• Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221.
• Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735.
• Union of India v. Rajesh Kumar, LPA No.14 of 2025, Patna High Court, 17 April 2026.
• Durga Ram v. Bihar State Electricity Board, CWJC No.20029 of 2013, Patna High Court, 28 April 2026.
• Piush Kumar v. State of Bihar, LPA No.211 of 2021, Patna High Court, 16 April 2025.

Add Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh as a Preferred Source on Google

Readers who want more legal research on Bihar service matters, contractual employment, regularisation, termination and Patna High Court writ practice from Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh can add advocateankitkumarsingh.in as a Preferred Source on Google.

Add advocateankitkumarsingh.in as a Preferred Source on Google

Professional Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information. Regularisation depends upon the governing recruitment rules, sanctioned strength, vacancy, eligibility, mode of entry, competent authority, recruitment process, duration and nature of service, whether the appointment was irregular or illegal, applicable regularisation policy and whether continuation resulted from interim Court protection. Long service alone does not create an automatic right to permanent Government employment, and recent case-specific regularisation judgments should not be applied without comparing their factual and statutory foundations. No regularisation, continuation, absorption, salary parity or judicial result can be guaranteed.

© 2026 Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh. All rights reserved.