Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court has dismissed a special leave petition filed by the Union of India and the Director, Directorate of Technical and Higher Education, Government of Puducherry, challenging a Madras High Court order directing the regularization of three lecturers employed on an ad hoc basis. The court ruled that the lecturers, who have been in service since 2005, are entitled to regularization and extended similar relief to 15 other incumbent lecturers.

The court also invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the Government of Puducherry to regularize all 18 lecturers without the involvement of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Further, it ordered an in-depth inquiry by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) into irregular appointments of ad hoc lecturers in the Polytechnic College and directed the submission of a report by May 14, 2025.

The case arose from a petition filed by K. Velajagan and others, who had been appointed as lecturers in Motilal Nehru Government Polytechnic College, Puducherry, on an hourly basis in January 2005, with approval from the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry. Seeking regularization of their services and consequential benefits, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench, which allowed their claim on April 3, 2013. The tribunal’s order was upheld by the Madras High Court on September 27, 2016, leading to the special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

The Government of Puducherry and the Union of India challenged the High Court ruling, arguing that the respondents were not recruited through the UPSC selection process and were thus ineligible for regularization. The petitioners contended that recruitment rules framed in 2006 mandated selection through UPSC, which had declined to regularize the respondents' appointments on procedural grounds.

The respondents asserted that they had been in service for nearly 20 years without any adverse record, possessed the requisite qualifications, and that similarly placed lecturers had already been regularized. They argued that denying them the same relief constituted discrimination.

The Supreme Court observed that the issue of ad hoc appointments in the Polytechnic College had persisted for years, with 45 out of 51 sanctioned lecturer posts being occupied by ad hoc appointees. The court noted that: “Out of 51 sanctioned posts of lecturers in the Polytechnic College, 45 posts are being manned by incumbents appointed on an ad hoc basis. Of these 45 incumbent lecturers, 15 of them had earlier moved the Tribunal and had obtained orders for regularization of their services.”

The court referred to its 2007 judgment in a related case, where it had directed the Government of Puducherry to frame a scheme for regular absorption of casual lecturers or consider them for regular appointment at the time of recruitment. The court recorded: “The Tribunal in our opinion directed the petitioners herein to frame a scheme for regular absorption of all casual lecturers or consider all the casual lecturers for appointment on a regular basis at the time of making regular appointments. The said direction is ratified by the High Court.”

The court noted that despite framing recruitment rules in 2006, the Government of Puducherry had failed to conduct a proper selection process, leading to persistent ad hoc appointments. The court stated: “Why due recruitment process, immediately after the 2006 Rules were introduced, was not conducted is a question which the petitioners have failed to satisfactorily answer.”

The court observed that 15 ad hoc lecturers had already been granted regularization by the tribunal and the High Court, and the respondents in the present case could not be denied the same relief.

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. Regularization of Ad Hoc Lecturers

“We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, meaning thereby that the claims of respondents 1 to 3 for regularization are required to be considered in the light of the decision given by the Tribunal, since affirmed by the High Court.”

“Having found that failure/reluctance to regularize the services of the said 15 incumbent lecturers might come in the way of regularizing the services of the respondents 1 to 3, we also direct that all the 18 incumbent lecturers (15 + 3) be regularized by the Government of Puducherry without any involvement of the UPSC.”

2. No Further Ad Hoc Appointments

The court directed that all future appointments must comply with the 2006 recruitment rules, stating: “Henceforth, for filling up the six vacant posts or other posts that might fall vacant in the Polytechnic College, the Government of Puducherry shall not proceed for any ad hoc arrangement and all such vacancies must be filled up in accordance with the 2006 Rules that are in force.”

3. CVC Inquiry into Irregular Appointments

The court noted that ad hoc lecturers continued to be appointed even after the 2006 Rules were introduced and called for an investigation into the matter: “The manner in which ad hoc lecturers have been appointed in the Polytechnic College by the Government of Puducherry even after the 2006 Rules were introduced warrants an in-depth inquiry to find out who was responsible for such illegal appointments.”

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was directed to conduct an inquiry into the matter and submit a report identifying responsible officials by May 14, 2025. The court stated: “We, accordingly, direct the Central Vigilance Commission to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the matter and submit a report fixing responsibility on the person(s) responsible (either in service or having demitted office) for such large-scale illegality in the matter of appointment of ad hoc lecturers. Such report shall be placed before this Court on 14th May, 2025.”

4. Communication of Order

The Supreme Court Registry was directed to communicate the order to the CVC for compliance.

Case Title: Union of India & Anr. v. K. Velajagan & Ors.
Case Number: SLP(C) No. 2868/2018
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan

[Read/Download order]