It is a disconcerting reality.

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 is often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. Government often cites and distorts Uma Devi’s spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

Where appointments were not ‘illegal’ but possibly ‘irregular’ and employees had served continuously, need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. A prolonged, continuous and unblemished service, performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis, can, over time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. See, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, [2024] 1 SCR 1230.

– Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Jaggo v. Union of India, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5580 of 2024].

_____

State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 observed, any appointment made in violation of statutory rules as well as mandate of Articles 14 and 16 would be a nullity in law.

Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh, (2018) 15 SCC 463 held, when appointment of candidates is a nullity in law making them disentitled to hold posts, Principles of Natural Justice were not required to be complied with, particularly when same would be nothing short of an exercise in futility.

– Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta, Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, [Civil Appeal Nos. 13950-13951 of 2024] decided on 19.02.2025.