Madan Singh and Othersv.State of Haryana & Others

Legal Analysis: Madan Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana & Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 379
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar (Division Bench)
Judgment Author: Not specified (per curiam, likely both)
Date of Decision: April 16, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal under Article 136 against High Court judgment quashing regularisation notifications.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The State of Haryana issued notifications in 2014 seeking to regularise the services of Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees working on ad hoc/contractual/daily wage basis. The High Court quashed all notifications as violative of the law laid down in Umadevi and subsequent decisions. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, holding that notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were valid as they covered employees left out from an earlier 1996 regularisation policy. However, notifications dated 07.07.2014 were arbitrary and illegal because they sought to regularise employees engaged without advertisement or interview. Exercising power under Article 142, the Court allowed those employees who had continued in service under the 07.07.2014 notifications to remain, but placed them at the lowest pay scale of the post.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Madan Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana & Others Civil Appeal Nos. 1996 of 2024 and connected matters (multiple appeals) Bench Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar Date of Decision April 16, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 379 Appeal From Common judgment dated 31.05.2018 of Punjab and Haryana High Court in batch of writ petitions

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Constitutional Provisions Involved:

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14 (equality), Article 16 (equality in public employment), Article 162 (extent of executive power of State), Article 309 (recruitment rules), Article 142 (power to do complete justice).

• Service jurisprudence: Principles of regularisation of ad hoc/contractual/daily wage employees.

Key Precedents:

• Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 – Constitution Bench: Regularisation not a mode of recruitment; one-time measure for those who worked 10+ years as on 10.04.2006.

• State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 – Clarified “one-time measure”; employees entitled to be considered even after six months if left out.

• B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka (1979) 4 SCC 507 – Executive power under Article 162 cannot contravene rules framed under Article 309.

• Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955) 2 SCR 225 – Executive power can be exercised even without prior law.

• State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 – Equal pay for equal work for temporary employees.

3. Relevant Facts

• Background: The State of Haryana had a regularisation policy dated 07.03.1996 for Group ‘B’ ad hoc employees, which was withdrawn on 08.12.1997. Some employees were regularised under that policy; others were left out.

• Notifications under challenge:
  16.06.2014 (Group ‘B’): Revived the 1996 policy for those left out, requiring 3 years service as on 28.05.2014, possession of prescribed qualifications, engagement on sanctioned vacant post, and adherence to reservation policy.
  18.06.2014 (Group ‘C’ & ‘D’): Similar criteria for left-out employees.
  07.07.2014 (Group ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’): Sought to regularise employees who had or would complete ten years of service by 31.12.2018, even if original engagement was without advertisement or interview.

• High Court judgment (31.05.2018): Quashed all notifications, holding they violated Umadevi principles, were not a genuine “one-time measure”, and were politically motivated.

• Appeals: State of Haryana and the affected employees appealed to Supreme Court.

4. Issues

1. Whether the notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 (reviving the 1996 policy for left-out employees) are valid in light of Umadevi and M.L. Kesari.

2. Whether the notifications dated 07.07.2014 (regularising employees without advertisement/interview) are valid.

3. Whether, if the 07.07.2014 notifications are invalid, the employees who have continued in service under them can be protected under Article 142.

5. Ratio Decidendi

• Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 are valid: The Court held that these notifications were intended to grant the benefit of regularisation to those Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ ad hoc employees who had been left out from the earlier 1996 policy. The criteria prescribed (prescribed qualifications, engagement on sanctioned vacant post, adherence to reservation policy) were not relaxed. The exercise was a continuation of the “one-time measure” as clarified in M.L. Kesari (Para 17-20).

• Notifications dated 07.07.2014 are arbitrary and illegal: These notifications sought to regularise ad hoc employees who were initially engaged without advertisement or interview. There was no justification for such deviation from the principles of open competitive selection. Such regularisation would violate Articles 14 and 16 (Para 21).

• Protection under Article 142 for employees under 07.07.2014 notifications: Given that these employees had continued in service for over a decade (since 2008) and had settled in life, and the State had utilised their services, the Court exercised its power under Article 142 to allow them to continue. However, they would be placed at the lowest pay scale of the post held by them, following Jagjit Singh (Para 22-23).

• No need to examine Article 162 argument: Since the High Court did not strike down the notifications on that ground, the Court left that issue open (Para 22).

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• Continuation of “one-time measure” beyond six months: The Court reaffirmed M.L. Kesari that the one-time measure under Umadevi can be continued to cover employees who were left out due to oversight or pending litigation. The 2014 notifications reviving the 1996 policy for left-out employees were a valid continuation.

• Regularisation without advertisement/interview is impermissible: Notifications that seek to regularise employees engaged without following the process of advertisement and interview are arbitrary and illegal, as they bypass the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment.

• Article 142 can protect employees whose regularisation was invalid but who have served long: In exceptional circumstances, where employees have worked for many years and the State has benefited from their services, the Court may allow them to continue at the lowest pay scale, without conferring the full benefits of regularisation.

7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

• Distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments: The Court noted that the 1996 policy and its revival required initial engagement on sanctioned posts with prescribed qualifications – such appointments were “irregular” (procedural defect) not “illegal”. This distinction from Umadevi was crucial (Para 17-18).

• Absence of material to show ineligibility: The original petitioners challenging the notifications failed to produce any material to show that the beneficiaries under the 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 notifications were ineligible. Therefore, the High Court’s quashing of those notifications was unjustified (Para 18).

• Prospective vs. retrospective regularisation: The 07.07.2014 notifications were “futuristic” – they sought to regularise employees who would complete ten years only in 2018. This was a clear violation of Umadevi, which limited the one-time measure to those who had already completed ten years as on 10.04.2006 (Para 21).

• Balancing equities under Article 142: The Court acknowledged the hardship to employees who had worked for many years and had no other employment. While upholding the invalidity of the 07.07.2014 notifications, it used Article 142 to prevent their summary removal, but without granting full regularisation benefits (lowest pay scale).

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment correctly distinguishes between the two sets of notifications. The 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 notifications merely revived a prior policy for left-out employees, which is consistent with M.L. Kesari. The 07.07.2014 notifications, however, sought to bypass the constitutional requirement of open recruitment – their invalidity is well-reasoned. The use of Article 142 to protect long-serving employees, while not granting full regularisation, is a pragmatic compromise.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly address whether the “one-time measure” can be revived after nearly eight years (from 2006 to 2014). However, M.L. Kesari had already clarified that the six-month period is not an absolute bar. The Court also left open the Article 162 issue, which may require clarification in future cases. The protection granted to employees under the 07.07.2014 notifications, while equitable, may be seen as rewarding an illegal process.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in similar regularisation disputes. It clarifies that a State can revive an earlier regularisation policy for left-out employees even after the Umadevi timeframe, as long as the appointments were irregular (not illegal) and the criteria are not relaxed. It also reinforces that regularisation without advertisement is invalid, but long-serving employees may be protected under Article 142 at the lowest pay scale.

9. Final Outcome

Appeals partly allowed. Impugned judgment of the High Court modified as follows:

• Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 are valid and upheld. The beneficiaries (including intervenors) shall be regularised subject to verification by competent authority.

• Notifications dated 07.07.2014 are quashed as arbitrary and illegal. However, Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees who have continued in service under these notifications (including intervenors) shall not be disturbed. They shall be placed at the lowest pay scale of the post held by them.

• Employees who had approached the High Court may take appropriate steps in accordance with this judgment.

• No order as to costs.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

• By State Governments (as employer): When seeking to regularise left-out employees from a prior policy, ensure that the appointments were on sanctioned posts with prescribed qualifications. The policy can be revived even after the Umadevi timeframe, as long as it is a genuine continuation of the one-time measure. However, avoid issuing notifications that regularise employees appointed without advertisement/interview.

• By employees (seeking regularisation): If you were engaged on a sanctioned post with prescribed qualifications but without a competitive exam, and have worked for many years, argue that your appointment was “irregular” not “illegal”. Cite this judgment to claim that the State can revive a prior policy for left-out employees. However, if your appointment was without any advertisement or interview, the court may not grant full regularisation but may protect you under Article 142 at the lowest pay scale.

• By petitioners challenging regularisation: To challenge a regularisation policy, show that the appointments were “illegal” (e.g., without prescribed qualifications or not on sanctioned posts) or that the policy seeks to regularise future service (prospective). Also, show that the policy relaxes recruitment rules without justification. This judgment upholds the invalidity of such futuristic policies.

11. Court Lines

“The criteria prescribed, therefore, is very much in tune with the criteria that would have otherwise been prescribed had the post been advertised for regular recruitment. We, therefore, find that the exercise of regularising the services of ad hoc employees, who had been left out from getting benefit of the earlier policy that was granted to some ad hoc employees was now being granted to the remaining ad hoc employees.” (Para 18)

“In our view, the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 seek to regularise the engagement of such ad hoc employees, who were not initially engaged through the process of advertisement nor after facing any interview. … There is no justification placed on record by the State of Haryana as to why services of such ad hoc employees ought to be regularised without even having the requirement of having been initially engaged after following the process of advertisement and interview.” (Para 21)

“In these peculiar facts and in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to permit such Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ ad hoc employees, who are continuing in service and who seek benefit of the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 be continued in service. They shall, however, be placed at the lowest pay scale that is admissible to the post held by them.” (Para 23)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For the State Government (appellant): When framing regularisation policies, clearly document that the beneficiaries were left out from a prior policy due to administrative oversight or pending litigation. Ensure that the criteria include: (i) engagement on sanctioned vacant post; (ii) possession of prescribed qualifications at the time of engagement; (iii) continuous service without court protection. Avoid any policy that regularises employees appointed without advertisement and interview – such policies will be struck down. If you must protect long-serving employees who were irregularly appointed, seek relief under Article 142 by placing on record the length of service, absence of complaints, and administrative necessity.

For the employees (beneficiaries): If your regularisation is challenged, first establish that your initial appointment was on a sanctioned post and you possessed the required qualifications. Then argue that your case falls under the “irregular” (not “illegal”) category. If the policy was issued after 2006, rely on M.L. Kesari to argue that the one-time measure can continue for left-out employees. If the policy is struck down, seek protection under Article 142, emphasising your long service, the State’s utilisation of your services, and the hardship of termination after many years. However, be prepared to accept a lower pay scale as a compromise.