In Ranjeet Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Sandeep Kumar delivered a 64-page long judgement dated January 9, 2026, wherein, he has directed "regularization of the petitioner nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 with effect from the date of filing of this writ petition in order to strike a fair balance between the competing submissions advanced by the parties and adhere to principles of equity, fairness and non-arbitrariness. 58. As a consequence of the regularization of services of petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, they shall be entitled to only momentary benefits from the date of regularization which shall be made effective from the date of filing of the present writ petition. Further, the order shall not affect the present and settled seniority in the cadre in which the petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are being regularized." The the petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are Ranjeet Kumar, Rajeev Kumar, Mohd. Rashid and Gautam Mohan Shukla respectively who work as the Personal Assistants of Patna High Court. The other three respondents are:2. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Hon'ble Patna High Court, Patna through its Registrar General and 4. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna.
In the light of catena of judgements by Supreme Court, Justice Kumar's judgement is impeccable. He relied on para 14 of the Supreme Court's decision in Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. Applying the law from the judgment, Justice Kumar concluded that "considering the peculiar facts of the present case, it emerges that the path towards regularization was provided by the respondents itself in the engagement letters under clauses (5) and (6). At no point of time, the stipulation under clauses (5) and (6) was found illegal nor the same was modified, altered or withdrawn. On the contrary, with each subsequent extension on the same terms and conditions, the aforesaid clauses subsisted. The petitioners have continuously served for the past about eight years and during this period no adverse conduct was found. Further, pertinently the nature of work of the petitioners is indeed perennial and the work is also undoubtedly akin and indistinguishable to that of the P.As. appointed on substantive regular post. Further, there is nothing in the counter affidavit to show that the engagement of the petitioners on contract basis and the subsequent examination on 16.12.2018, in which they were ultimately found successful was de hors the engagement letters or the Rules. At the cost of repetition, the path for regularization of services of the petitioner through an examination was provided by the respondents itself and now the respondents cannot turn around to contend that the examination was for limited purpose of considering their case for regularization. Further, the respondents have not been able to bring any document to show that there has been an adverse work and conduct report against the present petitioners."
The writ petition was filed invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for regularization of the petitioners against the vacant permanent substantive posts of Personal Assistants (P.A.) in the establishment of the High Court. These petitioners have been continuing on contract basis since their initial engagement from March-April, 2018, and to grant them all consequential benefits including regular pay scale and admissible allowances upon regularization of their services with effect from October 31, 2018.
The Patna High Court had published an advertisement on March 23, 2017 on its website inviting eligible candidates for direct recruitment to 100 vacant posts of P.A. under the ministerial establishment of this Court. Responding to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioners had applied. Pursuant to the aforesaid recruitment process, the Online Test for recruitment to the post of P.A. was conducted on December 10, 2017. On March 31, 2018, it was notified vide notice issued by the Registrar General of the High Court, that none of the appearing candidates including these petitioners, met the minimum qualifying standard mentioned in Clause-5 of the advertisement and consequently none had qualified. In other words, all the candidates including the present petitioners stood unsuccessful. But vide the same notice dated March 31, 2018, it was notified that owing to pressing need of manpower due to acute shortage of P.As. and in order to meet the requirement and exigencies of this Court, it was decided to engage top 100 candidates, from amongst the non-qualified candidates, purely on contractual basis for a period of six months on a consolidated pay of Rs.30,000/- only per month subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in their engagement letters, which was issued individually to each of the aforesaid candidates. Keeping in view the reservation policy and roster, as adopted by this Court, wherein only 75 candidates could be engaged since 25 candidates belonging to EBC, SC, ST and DQ category candidates could not make it within the said top 100 “unsuccessful” candidates. Consequently, these petitioners along with other candidates were engaged on contract basis and individual engagement letters were issued. The engagement was subject to the condition that the candidates must clear the minimum qualifying standards as prescribed in the advertisement on completion of six months period of their service and those candidates who cleared the test would be considered for appointment on the substantive post of P.A. on probation. Subsequently, 42 out of 75 candidates, including these petitioners, finally joined the post of P.A.
The Registrar General, the respondent no. 4 vide his Office Order dated October 10, 2018 extended the period of engagement for 45 days on the same terms and conditions, on which the candidates including the petitioners were engaged and it was further stated that the qualifying examination as contemplated in the engagement letters shall be conducted and the date thereof would be notified in due course. On October 30, 2018, the date of the said examination, which was meant for regular appointment for the 42 P.As, serving on contract basis at that time, was notified as November 4, 2018 by the respondent no.4, the Registrar General. By an even dated notice, it was also notified that the asaid examination which was scheduled for November 4, 2018 would to be conducted by TCS, the same agency that had conducted the initial recruitment examination.
On November 23, 2018, the Competent Authority had directed to place the results of the aforesaid examination in a sealed cover and also that the engagement of the said contractual employees i.e. the 41 P.A.s, at the time, was extended by one month. After completion of the said test, it was notified vide notice dated December 5, 2018 that none of the 41 P.As who were engaged and serving at the time on contract and had appeared for the test on November 4, 2018 had qualified the said qualifying test. Accordingly, a fresh examination of English Shorthand Typing Test for the 41 candidates was conducted in the Court premises on December 16, 2018. The criterion for the examination scheduled for December 16, 2018 also stood changed and the candidates were also informed that the passage for the said test shall be approximately of 1000 words and the speed of stenography expected from them was 80 words per minute (wpm) and accordingly the dictated passage was to be typed out within the prescribed limit of time which was 50 minutes. By another notice, which was again in continuation of the earlier notice dated December 5, 2018, it was informed to the 41 candidates that an English Typing Test of 400 words @ 40 wpm would also be conducted immediately after the examination of the English Shorthand typing test on the same date i.e., December 16, 2018. 8. After the examination on December 16, 2018 was concluded, it was notified vide Office Order January 11, 2019 by the Registrar General, the respondent no.4 that based on the performance in the said examination of English shorthand typing test and the English typing test held on December 16, 2018, altogether 35 out of the 41 candidates were continued on contractual basis on the same terms and conditions on which their earlier engagements were made, till regular selections are held as per the Rules after fresh advertisement. The remaining six candidates who could not achieve the minimum standard in the said examination, their services stood terminated vide Office Order. Out of the 35 selected persons who were to continue as contractual engagement after qualifying the examination held on December 16, 2018, only, 8 candidates, including the petitioners before the High Court remained. Subsequently, even out of the said 8 candidates, 3 candidates resigned and only five candidates remained. These five candidates were before the High Court in the writ petition.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that immediately after qualifying the examination held on December 16, 2018, the petitioners had preferred several representations through the respondent-Registrar General for appointing them on the substantive post of P.A. in view of clause (5) read with clause (6) of their engagement letters but in all occasions the respondents have not considered their prayer and vide different office orders the services of the petitioners was extended periodically and the terms of their original engagement sustained. Subsequently, on a representation dated August 9, 2021, made by the petitioners and other candidates engaged contractually, the tenure of their contract was further extended till conclusion of the then upcoming direct recruitment on the same terms and condition as originally engaged on the post of P.A. vide Office Order dated September 5, 2021.The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had drawn strength from the clauses (5) and (6) of their engagement letters to contend that their services merits regularization upon having qualified the examination. Referring to the clauses (5) and (6) of the engagement letters, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that a bare perusal of the aforesaid clause would show that the appointments of the petitioners were made subject to the condition that they must clear the minimum prescribed qualification upon completion of the six months of contractual service, and after successfully qualifying the said test, the case of the petitioners would be considered for regular substantive permanent post of P.A. on probation by putting them on regular pay scale and admissible allowances. The examination which took place on December 16, 2018 was in pursuance of the said stipulation under clauses (5) and (6) of the engagement letters, and the petitioners having successfully qualified by meeting the minimum statutory standard therein have crystallized their right to be considered towards regularization. It was categorically submitted that the petitioners were selected, not randomly, rather pursuant to the open examination based on their performance therein in order of merit, and the stipulation as contained under clauses (5) and (6) of their engagement letters clearly provided that upon successfully qualifying the examination, the services would be regularized. Thus, it is argued that the petitioners were not selected as a ‘back-door’ entrant and it would be manifestly arbitrary for the respondents to not regularize the services of the petitioners against the substantive regular posts despite fulfilling the conditions pursuant to clauses (5) and (6) of their engagement letters and pertinently after having successfully qualifying the examination conducted on December 16, 2018.
It was also submitted that the petitioners who are discharging the same duties as their counterparts, who have been appointed on a regular post, are yet being deprived of their rightful regularization. The counsel for the petitioners had drawn strength from the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, particularly paragraph-10 wherein the Supreme Court had held that long and uninterrupted service cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of the employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of the work.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the case of the petitioners squarely justifies regularization since, firstly, the nature of work dispensed by the petitioners was perennial and fundamental to the working of the High Court. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their regularization on regular substantive post, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. Secondly, the work of the petitioners was not only essential but also indistinguishable from those regular appointees who are working as regular P.A.s in this Court. Thirdly, the petitioners were not back-door entrants since their engagement letters itself provisioned for a path towards regularization upon qualifying the examination as per clauses (5) and (6) of their engagement letters and after successfully qualifying the examination conducted by the respondent authorities on December 16, 2018, the petitioners have a crystallized lawful claim for regularization of their services. It was also argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the denial of the regularization by the respondent authorities is a glaring case of misuse of label of ‘engagement on contract basis’ and denial of basic rights and benefits of the petitioners.
The counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327, wherein the Court in para-5 had held that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous services of the petitioners performing duties indistinguishable from those on permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Referring to para 8 of the judgment, the counsel for the petitioners argued that in the case, the service conditions, as evolved over a long period of time, warrants a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their role and their continuous service akin to the permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness and intent behind employment regulations. The counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Dharam Singh & Ors. vs State of U.P. & Anr. reported as 2025 (4) PLJR (SC) 152 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735. The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had now reached the upper age limit and therefore they could not appear for any public employment and further the petitioners have been serving the High Court, since April, 2018, i.e., for about eight years now and therefore it is argued that even on a sympathetic consideration the petitioners deserve regularization of their services. Binod Kumar Singh and Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi were the counsels for the petitioners.
Piyush Lal, the counsel for the High Court relied unsuccessfully on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported as AIR 2006 SC 1806 to repel the claim of the petitioners for regularization. A bare reading of the judgment by the Supreme Court reveals that it does not bar the petitioners’ claim for regularization. The decision itself carves out an exception for such cases where employees have been working for a long period.
Instead of appreciating the work of its own PAs who worked with dedication for about eight years, an LPA has been filed against Justice Kumar's judgement upholding constitutional discipline enunciated by the Supreme Court.
In The Hon'ble Patna High Court, Patna through its Registrar General & Anr. vs. Ranjeet Kumar & Ors. (2026), High Court's Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh, the Sudhir Singh, and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma passed an order dated July 27, 2026, wherein, it condoned the delay of 59 days in preferring the appeal and listed it for August 12, 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment