A landmark ruling by the Central Administrative Tribunal has reaffirmed that eligibility at the time of initial engagement is not a mere procedural formality but a foundational requirement for any lawful appointment. The Tribunal dismissed a long-standing claim for regularization and pensionary benefits, emphasizing that no amount of continued service can validate an appointment that was void ab initio due to statutory disqualification.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Kailash Kumar, sought regularization as a General Line Teacher under the Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) Scheme, claiming continuous service since 1979. He contended that his roles as an Instructor (from 1979), Education Volunteer (from 2003), and later as RET (from 2009) constituted a single, uninterrupted service stream entitling him to regularization after five years as RET in 2014. He further demanded that his entire service be counted for pensionary benefits and that his salary be fixed retrospectively with interest.
Procedural History
- 1979: Engaged as an Instructor in a part-time centre under an ad hoc scheme
- 2003: Transferred to the Education Volunteer scheme under SRO-30/2003
- 2009: Converted to Rehbar-e-Taleem after acquiring 10+2 qualification
- 2019: Attained superannuation age (60) and retired without regularization
- 2019: Filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir
- 2023: Writ petition transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal as TA No. 62/2023
Relief Sought
The applicant sought: (1) regularization as a teacher with retrospective effect from 2014; (2) inclusion of all prior service for pension calculation; (3) payment of full salary with 10% interest from the date of eligibility; and (4) any other relief deemed just.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an employee who was ineligible at the time of initial engagement due to violation of statutory age limits can claim regularization and pensionary benefits merely on the basis of prolonged service.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on principles of equity and legitimate expectation, arguing that his long and continuous service - spanning over four decades - created a moral and de facto right to regularization. He contended that the State had acquiesced to his service by allowing him to continue in various roles and that denying him benefits now would amount to unjust enrichment. He cited State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh to argue that service rendered in good faith should not be rendered futile.
For the Respondent
The State countered that eligibility criteria, particularly age limits, are substantive conditions going to the root of appointment. It demonstrated that the applicant was 49 years old at the time of his engagement as an Education Volunteer in 2008, well beyond the upper age limit of 45 prescribed under the scheme. It further argued that the conversion to RET was itself illegal, as it was predicated on an invalid prior engagement. The State relied on Union of India v. Rameshwar Prasad to assert that regularization is not a remedy for curing illegal appointments.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the nature of the applicant’s engagements under each scheme and found that none constituted a regular appointment under the School Education Department’s service rules. The Court emphasized that eligibility at the threshold is non-negotiable in public employment. The applicant’s age at the time of his 2008 engagement as an Education Volunteer rendered his appointment void ab initio, irrespective of subsequent roles.
"Eligibility conditions, particularly age criteria, go to the root of appointment. Any engagement made in violation of such essential conditions does not confer a legal right capable of enforcement."
The Tribunal rejected the argument that long service could cure an initial illegality, citing settled jurisprudence that regularization is not a mode of recruitment. It held that even if the State had permitted the applicant to continue, such acquiescence could not validate an appointment that contravened mandatory statutory norms. The Court also distinguished honorarium-based roles like Education Volunteer from substantive civil posts, noting that these were temporary, non-pensionable engagements.
The Tribunal further observed that the applicant was not even eligible for the limited age relaxation under SRO-30/2003, which applied only to candidates below 45 years at the time of application. The conversion to RET, therefore, was legally unsustainable. The plea of counting prior service for pension was dismissed because pensionary benefits accrue only from regular service under recognized rules, not from ad hoc or honorarium-based roles.
The Verdict
The applicant’s Transfer Application was dismissed. The Tribunal held that no enforceable right to regularization or pensionary benefits arises from an appointment void at inception due to statutory disqualification, even after decades of service. The claim for retrospective salary and interest was also rejected.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Initial Illegality Cannot Be Curated by Continuity
- Practitioners must assess eligibility at the point of initial engagement before asserting rights to regularization
- Long service alone cannot override statutory disqualifications in public employment
- Tribunals and courts will not entertain equitable claims that seek to validate illegal appointments
Pensionary Benefits Require Lawful Regular Service
- Service under honorarium-based or ad hoc schemes cannot be aggregated for pension calculation
- Only service rendered under formal recruitment rules qualifies for pensionary entitlement
- Applicants must prove lawful appointment at inception to claim cumulative service benefits
Administrative Acquiescence Does Not Confer Legal Rights
- Continued employment by the State, even with salary payments, does not imply legal recognition of an invalid appointment
- Courts will not reward administrative lapses by granting substantive benefits
- Petitioners must demonstrate compliance with mandatory eligibility norms from day one
