Karnataka HC directs state to avoid temporary appointments

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to avoid contractual or temporary appointments in various departments and instead make regular appointments. This should be as per the constitutional provision interpreted by the Supreme Court on the issue of regularisation of temporary employees.

Justice P B Bajanthri issued this direction recently while dismissing the petitions filed by Preethi Bhandage, resident of Koppal, and 75 others questioning the endorsements dated June 29, 2017 and sought for directions to the authorities concerned to regularise their services in the post of Accounting Consultants from the initial date of appointment and extend pay attached to the post of Accountants.  “The Chief Secretary must issue appropriate direction to each of the selecting and appointing authority to adhere to the provisions of law, since errors are being committed even today, despite the Constitution bench decision in Uma Devi’s case in 2006,” the high court said.  

 The court asked its registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary for reference and communication to all state departments to avoid contract appointment for longer period.  Further, regular recruitment should be made to public posts in accordance with the Rules of recruitment governing the post and the authorities must comply with the Constitutional provisions read with Constitution Bench decision in the case of Umadevi, it said.  

While directing the State to consider and henceforth make regular appointments only in terms of the Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2010, the court said: “A person appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis has no right to the post. Casual or daily-rated workers or stop-gap appointees will also have no such right - merely because a person continues under interim orders of the court, such continuance to the post cannot confer any right to continuance or regularisation.” The court also made it clear that successive extensions of temporary appointment do not give rise to legitimate expectation of regularisation.