Bombay High Court Orders Regularisation of Long-Serving VVMC Contract Workers; Quashes Fresh Exam Requirement, Holds Perennial Public Work Cannot Sustain Years of Ad-Hoc Employment Practices Indefinitely
Bombay High Court Ends Years of Contractual Ad-Hocism at VVMC; Directs Permanency for Long-Serving Employees and Strikes Down Fresh Recruitment Examination
Facts
This common judgment decided a batch of writ petitions led by Dr. Bhakti Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. v. Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation & Anr. The petitioners included doctors, medical officers, paramedical personnel and administrative staff employed by the Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation (VVMC) on contractual terms for prolonged periods. They sought absorption, regularisation and permanency in the posts they were already holding.
The lead petitioners were MBBS doctors appointed after responding to advertisements issued by VVMC and undergoing an independent selection process. VVMC operated hospitals, Urban Primary Health Centres, Mother and Child Care Centres, clinics and other medical facilities requiring substantial permanent staffing.
VVMC had repeatedly issued advertisements for appointments described as six-month contractual engagements. Recruitment covered doctors, specialists, nurses, technicians and other health personnel, and the advertisements also applied the reservation roster.
The petitioners contended that they fulfilled the prescribed qualifications and were selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. Their six-month appointments were repeatedly renewed, often after a one-day “technical break”, while they continued performing the same functions year after year.
Many had served for approximately 8 to 11 years. The petitioners alleged that technical breaks were merely used on paper to prevent their continuous employment from ripening into claims for permanency.
Their work was not temporary. They continued staffing VVMC’s public-health institutions and many had served during the COVID-19 pandemic, when their services were essential to keeping hospitals and health centres functional.
During the litigation, it also emerged that 33 similarly situated contractual employees of VVMC had already been regularised under Government decisions dated 23 November 2023 and 15 March 2024 without being required to undergo a fresh examination.
However, by communication dated 21 January 2026, the State’s Urban Development Department directed VVMC to subject the remaining contractual employees to a computer-based examination as a condition for regularisation. VVMC thereafter issued a consequential communication dated 28 January 2026 implementing that requirement.
The petitioners challenged both communications and sought regularisation on parity with those already absorbed.
Issues
The principal issue was whether VVMC could continue employees on successive contractual appointments for eight to ten years despite the work being continuous, perennial and integral to municipal functioning.
The Court also considered whether employees originally appointed through public advertisements, prescribed qualifications, reservation norms and a duly constituted selection process could be treated as illegal or “back-door” appointees merely because their appointments were labelled contractual.
Another central question was whether the State could compel these long-serving employees to undergo a fresh written examination for regularisation when similarly situated VVMC employees had already been regularised without such an examination.
The Court further examined the applicability of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, the principles of parity under Article 14, legitimate expectation, the State’s obligation as a model employer and the constitutional limits of prolonged contractual employment.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that their appointments were not casual or clandestine. They had been selected after public advertisements, satisfaction of qualification requirements, interviews before duly constituted Selection Committees and implementation of reservation norms.
They stressed that their work was perennial, as demonstrated by continuous renewals over many years and the uninterrupted requirement for medical, paramedical and administrative services within VVMC.
They argued that after years of service they had become age-barred from competing for alternative public employment. The repeated renewals had effectively placed them in a position where they had no meaningful bargaining choice except to continue signing contractual appointment orders.
The petitioners further relied on the fact that 33 similarly placed VVMC employees had already been absorbed without any written examination. Imposing a test only upon the remaining petitioners therefore applied a different yardstick to identically situated employees.
They relied upon decisions including State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Jaggo v. Union of India, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. and Sachin Ambadas Dawale v. State of Maharashtra to contend that their prolonged contractual status could no longer legally be sustained.
Respondent’s Arguments
VVMC maintained that the appointments were expressly contractual and were made for six-month periods under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act.
Each appointment letter stated that the employee would not acquire a claim for regularisation or absorption. VVMC argued that these contractual conditions had been voluntarily accepted and repeatedly renewed.
The Corporation also contended that permanent recruitment had to comply with the prescribed statutory recruitment process and that contractual employees could not simply be absorbed where regular recruitment procedures had not been followed.
The State and VVMC relied on the Government requirement that employees should undergo a computer-based test before being regularised. VVMC nevertheless did not dispute that the petitioners had been working for long periods or that it had itself approached the State Government seeking regularisation of their services.
The respondents also relied upon the contractual nature of the appointments and the principles flowing from Umadevi and State of Maharashtra v. Anita to resist an automatic claim to permanency.
Analysis of the Law
Appointments Were Not Illegal or Back-Door Entries
The Court drew an important distinction between illegal appointments and appointments which were merely contractual or irregular in form.
The petitioners had been appointed through public advertisements, after undergoing selection before duly constituted Selection Committees under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act and applicable recruitment norms.
Their appointments therefore could not be characterised as illegal or back-door appointments.
This was crucial because Umadevi was intended to prevent unconstitutional back-door recruitment, not to legitimise indefinite contractualisation of persons properly selected for work of a permanent character.
Eight to Ten Years of Continuous Service Created Legitimate Expectation
The Court noted that many petitioners had served VVMC continuously for approximately eight to ten years.
By this stage, other avenues of public employment were substantially closed to many of them because of age limitations. Their repeated extensions, uninterrupted duties and the Corporation’s continuing dependence upon their services gave rise to a legitimate expectation that their service would eventually receive formal recognition.
The Court held that such employees could not remain indefinitely trapped in contractual status when the work itself was regular and perennial.
Similarly Situated Employees Must Receive Equal Treatment
A particularly important fact was that 33 similarly situated VVMC employees had already been regularised without a fresh examination.
Drawing upon State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the Court reiterated that service jurisprudence ordinarily requires identically situated employees to receive identical treatment; otherwise Article 14 is violated.
The State and VVMC therefore could not insist upon a fresh examination only for the petitioners while dispensing with that requirement for comparable employees selected through the same process and performing similar duties.
Fresh Examination Served No Useful Purpose
The Court held that requiring a written examination after the petitioners had already discharged their respective duties competently for many years served no useful purpose.
They possessed the prescribed qualifications, had undergone a valid selection process and there was no dispute regarding the quality or standard of their public service.
The Government’s fresh examination condition was therefore unsustainable.
Perennial Work Cannot Be Performed Indefinitely Through Contract Labour
The Court strongly deprecated the practice of continuing public employees in a state of prolonged ad-hocism.
It observed that creation of permanent posts and filling vacancies under the applicable rules should be the rule, while contractual appointments for short periods should remain an exception. Long-term contractualisation creates insecurity, personal prejudice and ultimately harms effective public administration.
The Bench also called upon the State Government to issue appropriate directives to municipal corporations to eliminate long-term contractual appointments and pursue lawful regularisation.
Precedent Analysis
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
The Court did not treat Umadevi as imposing an absolute prohibition on regularisation.
It emphasised the distinction between illegal appointments and irregular appointments. Where appointments have followed an open and lawful selection process, public bodies cannot mechanically invoke Umadevi to perpetuate precarious employment for work that is permanent in nature.
Sachin Ambadas Dawale v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court relied on Sachin Ambadas Dawale for the proposition that contractual employees appointed through public advertisement and a duly constituted Selection Committee cannot automatically be treated as back-door entrants merely because their appointments were initially contractual.
State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava
This authority supported the principle of parity.
Where one group of identically situated employees receives relief, similarly situated employees ordinarily must also receive that benefit unless recognised exceptions such as delay, laches or acquiescence apply. The present petitioners were not fence-sitters and had actively pursued their claims.
Jaggo v. Union of India
The Court relied extensively on Jaggo, where the Supreme Court cautioned against using Umadevi to justify years of contractual employment for perennial and indispensable work.
The Supreme Court had held that government institutions must lead by example and cannot use temporary nomenclature to perpetuate employment insecurity when regular work exists.
Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.
The Court relied on Dharam Singh for the proposition that although creation of posts is normally an executive function, refusal to sanction posts is not immune from judicial scrutiny where authorities ignore the functional necessity of the work while continuously extracting the same labour from temporary workers.
Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand
The Bench treated the recent Supreme Court judgment in Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129, as particularly significant.
There, contractual engineers serving for years against sanctioned posts were held entitled to regularisation where the State had continued their appointments while keeping permanent posts vacant.
The Supreme Court stressed that the State is a model employer, must act with fairness and dignity, and cannot exploit an employee’s unequal bargaining position. Acceptance of contractual terms does not constitute waiver of fundamental rights.
The Court also drew from Bhola Nath the doctrine of legitimate expectation, holding that repeated extensions and continued reliance on an employee naturally create an expectation that long service will eventually receive recognition.
Ultimately, Bhola Nath held that contractual nomenclature cannot justify continued denial of regularisation where sanctioned posts, long service and a lawful initial selection process exist.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found several circumstances collectively decisive.
The petitioners had not entered service through clandestine or irregular back-door recruitment. They were qualified candidates selected through public advertisements and proper Selection Committees.
Their work was not temporary. They had performed medical, health and administrative duties continuously for years, including throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
There were also substantial sanctioned vacancies. Earlier proceedings recorded 465 sanctioned posts, of which only 52 were occupied permanently and 413 remained vacant, while approximately 479 persons were working on temporary or contractual terms.
The State had already regularised other VVMC employees and employees of other municipal corporations without imposing the examination now sought to be enforced against these petitioners.
Accordingly, the Court held that maintaining them indefinitely on contracts and thereafter imposing a fresh examination as a condition of permanency was arbitrary and discriminatory.
The Bench further observed that contractual clauses stating that employees would acquire no right to regularisation could not immunise State action from constitutional scrutiny. Public employment remains subject to Articles 14 and 16, and public authorities must act as model employers.
The Court therefore concluded that the petitioners had acquired a legitimate expectation of regularisation and could not now be left to “fend for themselves” after spending their productive years serving VVMC.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court allowed the entire batch of writ petitions.
It quashed the State Urban Development Department’s communication dated 21 January 2026 and VVMC’s consequential communication dated 28 January 2026, holding that the petitioners could not be subjected to a written examination as a condition for regularisation.
The Court directed the Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation to absorb and regularise the petitioners and confer permanency upon them in the posts they were holding on contractual basis.
Significantly, the regularisation orders were directed to be issued within two weeks from the date of judgment. No costs were imposed.
The Court additionally expressed the expectation that the State and municipal corporations would move away from long-term contractual ad-hocism and adopt a robust policy for regular staffing wherever permanent and recurring work exists.
Case Details
Case: Dr. Bhakti Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. v. Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation & Anr. with connected writ petitions
Court: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 4079 of 2021 with connected petitions
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:37648-DB
Bench: Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe
Reserved: 1 July 2026
Pronounced: 11 September 2026
Result: Petitions allowed; fresh examination requirement quashed; VVMC directed to absorb and regularise the petitioners and issue permanency orders within two weeks.
