The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld a Single Judge’s order that three veterinary officers appointed in 2013 must be regularised. This is so even though their services were terminated once and they continued only because of court orders. It held that the Department’s abrupt terminations were a mechanism to deprive employees of the benefit of regularisation.
An appointment made after an advertisement and selection process against sanctioned posts, even if only on an urgent temporary basis under a rule, is “irregular” and not “illegal”, so the principle of Uma Devi against back-door entry does not bar regularisation after ten years’ service. Termination of such an employee by the Department, followed by reinstatement through a court order, does not by itself disentitle him from regularisation if he otherwise meets the conditions. Courts look at the reality of the employment, such as continuous service on perennial work, and not the “temporary” label.
Dr. Ramakant Soni, Dr. Surendra Kumar and Dr. Shahdab Ahmed Khan applied against an advertisement of 14 March 2013 for 500 Veterinary Officer posts under Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963, which allows temporary appointment in urgent cases, and were appointed after a selection process. After three years, the Department terminated them. They won their writ petitions and continued in service. In 2020, they asked for regularisation, were refused, and went to the High Court. On 28 November 2025, the Single Judge directed the Department to regularise them after completing 10 years, counted from the initial date of joining, with all consequential benefits. In the State’s appeal, the Additional Advocate General relied on Uma Devi, saying that they were temporary, and that those who continued under court orders are excluded from the 10-year one-time regularisation. Justices Vinit Kumar Mathur and Chandra Shekhar Sharma disagreed. They relied on the Supreme Court’s Jaggo v. Union of India, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, Dharam Singh, Prem Singh and Bhola Nath rulings, and held that Uma Devi was meant to stop back-door entry and does not penalise long-serving employees whose appointments were irregular and not illegal, such as those selected through an advertisement and a selection process. They said that a termination does not, by itself, disentitle an employee from regularisation if he otherwise meets the Uma Devi conditions. They also noted that a co-ordinate Bench had allowed a similar appeal in Mohd. Sadiq in March 2026, and that periodic engagements for perennial work are used to avoid regularisation. The court found no error in the Single Judge’s decision.
Citation: State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Dr. Ramakant Soni & Ors., D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 891/2026, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench (Justices Vinit Kumar Mathur and Chandra Shekhar Sharma), decided on 03.11.2026 (uploaded 04.11.2026) | 2026:RJ-JD:54222-DB
Leave a Reply