No Automatic Right To Regularisation Of Employment, But Authorities Cannot Act Arbitrarily: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has set aside the rejection of a contractual employee’s claim for regularisation as Administrative Officer at the Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management (IITTM), holding that while such an employee has no automatic right to a permanent post, authorities cannot consider her claim arbitrarily.

Allowing the writ petition in part, Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat quashed the order dated 02.09.2013 and sent the matter back to the competent authority for fresh consideration within three months. The Court, however, refused to direct regularisation at this stage.

The petitioner, Priyanka Chauhan, was appointed on contract for two years from 01.09.2008, though the post had been advertised as regular, and her tenure was later extended. Her counsel argued that her confidential reports for three periods recorded satisfactory performance, yet her claim for regularisation was rejected.

She had earlier won W.P. No. 6939/2011, in which the High Court directed consideration of her case. The writ appeal and the Supreme Court special leave petition were both dismissed in 2013. A five-member committee then rated her first three performance periods as “Average” and the fourth, from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011, as “Poor”, and found her unsuitable.

She contended that her “satisfactory” reports were downgraded without communication to her. She alleged that the adverse assessment rested on a note sheet dated 20.01.2012, which she called fabricated and antedated, and that the Institute had regularised 59 employees without any uniform criterion. She relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dev Dutt.

The respondents argued that the engagement was a stop-gap arrangement conferring no right to regularisation, and that the assessment was based on a contemporaneous report prepared by the Nodal Officer and endorsed by the Director. They said the 59 employees were regularised as a one-time measure after more than ten years of contractual service.

The Court accepted the broader legal position, citing Umadevi, and observed that a contractual employee “does not automatically acquire a right to regularization” merely through long service or repeated extensions.

It added a caveat. “The fact that the petitioner has no automatic right to regularization does not mean that the respondents are free to consider her claim arbitrarily,” the Court said, adding that consideration in compliance with a judicial direction “must be fair, reasonable and based upon relevant material.”

Relying on Dev Dutt and the three-Judge Bench ruling in Sukhdev Singh, the Court observed that if such assessments were used to reject her claim without being communicated, the action “would be inconsistent with the requirement of fairness.”

On the disputed note sheet, the Court struck a balanced note. “The mere fact that a document was not produced in earlier litigation does not, by itself, establish that it is fabricated,” it said, while adding that an allegation of fabrication cannot be accepted without supporting material. Yet the authority, it stressed, must show the document forms part of the authentic official record.

Regularisation of other employees, it added, does not automatically entitle her to the same benefit.

The competent authority has been directed to examine her complete service record, verify the authenticity of the note sheet, communicate the adverse entries and allow her to represent, pass a reasoned order, and examine the recruitment rules without treating the regularisation of others as decisive.

Declining a direct order, the Court said, “A direction for fair consideration cannot be converted into an automatic right to permanent appointment.” It clarified that it has expressed no final opinion on her entitlement.

The prayers for perjury and contempt proceedings were not granted, as no finding of guilt can be recorded on mere allegations. The petition was disposed of without costs.

Advocates D.P. Singh and Manoj Pratap Singh Yadav appeared for the petitioner, while Kabir Quraishi represented the respondents.

Case Title: Priyanka Chauhan vs. Union of India and Others

Order Date: October 30, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat