𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢z𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐡 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: 𝐒𝐂

𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢z𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐡 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲:

A Three Member Bench of the Supreme Court has given a significant and conclusive ruling on issues of regularization of contractual employees, anti-date regularization, claiming regularization as of right and the autonomy of educational institutions. The Court has attempted in the judgment in hand to answer these issues at once and for all.

The background of the case is that Peshawar High Court had decided certain writ petitions and directed the employer, the University, to regularize the contractual employees, the Petitioners, on the ground that the earlier judgment of the P.H.C had regularized similarly placed contractual employees. So shall be treated the petitioners.  The same order was challenged by the University before the SC in the instant case wherein the SC unequivocally ruled that regularization cannot be claimed as of right unless it has statutory or policy backing. It is a policy matter and many considerations are involved in making contractual employees regular. The courts must show restraint while adjudicating matters which are policy based unless it contravenes the fundamental rights or a statute.

The SC further held that regularization is not a routine matter. It needs a conscious exercise and application of mind on the part of employer. It is a fresh appointment where the abilities, capabilities, education and other aspects of candidates are considered for employing them, where the courts lack expertise. The SC also commented on the concept of autonomy of educational and other institutions in a democratic state and stated that democracy and rule of law cannot thrive unless the educational institutions are autonomous and they are free in decision making.

The Court found the regularization in the case in hand without any legal backing and set aide the P.H.C order. So was the fate of those petitions where anti-date regularization was sought, as to that extent the Cout ruled that regularization is always prospective nor retrospective. Since it is a new appoint and abilities of candidates are gauged on the basis of a criteria during the regularization process, it cannot be allowed to take effect from the date of initial appoint.

Click to Download