Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Thane & Ors. vs Santosh Tukaram Tiware & Ors.
Background
In 2010, the Zila Parishad, Thane appointed the respondent as an ambulance driver at a primary health centre purely on a temporary, contractual basis, pending completion of a tender process to outsource driver services to an agency: his appointment letter itself said his services would end once a proper Zila Parishad driver or contracted agency was in place. His contract kept getting renewed every two months because the tender process dragged on for nearly a decade. In 2021, once the tender was finally awarded to a security/outsourcing agency, his services were terminated; he then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking regularization, and the High Court not only ordered his regularization after nine-plus years of service but also set aside the termination order, even though that termination order had never actually been challenged in his petition.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred on two counts: first, it quashed a termination order (dated 15.07.2021, arising from the contract being awarded to the outsourcing agency) that was never actually challenged before it; second, it ordered regularization despite the respondent's appointment having been made without any competitive selection process, purely as a stopgap contractual arrangement explicitly conditioned on ending once a proper appointment/contract was made. The Court distinguished the precedents relied on by the respondent (Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav and Sheo Narain Nagar), noting those involved unfair labour practice or conferred temporary status with genuine posts available: facts absent here. Long years of contractual service alone, the Court held, do not create a right to regularization where the original appointment bypassed due selection procedure. The High Court's judgment was set aside, the respondent's writ petition dismissed, and the Zila Parishad's appeal allowed, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
Prolonged continuation on a purely contractual, stopgap post, even for nine or ten years, does not by itself entitle an employee to regularization if the original appointment was never made through a proper selection process; courts also cannot strike down an order that was never actually challenged in the pleadings before them.