Once Candidates Are Absorbed On Regular Posts, Irregularity In Initial Appointments Is Deemed To Have Been Cured: Allahabad High Court

 Allahabad High Court

 Introduction

In a landmark decision that balances legal formalities with principles of fairness, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that once employees are absorbed on regular posts, any irregularities in their initial appointments stand cured. This verdict could impact countless government employees who face legal uncertainty due to procedural lapses in their early appointments.

Let's explore the case in depth, understand the background, and see how the Court’s judgment is both legally sound and humane.

Fact of the Case

A group of government employees had initially been appointed through a process that wasn’t fully compliant with established rules—perhaps due to lack of formal advertisement or deviations from the selection procedure.

Despite this, they were allowed to work for several years. Over time, the government formally absorbed them into regular posts, essentially validating their continued employment.

Later, their right to hold these positions was questioned, with claims that their initial appointments were "irregular" and thus invalid.

Legal Issues Involved

This case brought to the fore several critical legal questions:

1. Does an irregular initial appointment render an employee’s service illegal, even after regular absorption?
2. Can the government later challenge such appointments despite allowing them to continue for years?
3. Does procedural irregularity outweigh years of genuine service and subsequent regularization?

 Court’s Reasoning and Judgment

The Allahabad High Court took a progressive and empathetic stance, holding that:

“Once candidates are absorbed on regular posts, the irregularity in the initial appointment process is deemed to have been cured.”

 the Judgment:

• No Fraud or Misrepresentation: The court found that the employees had not committed any fraud or deceit to secure their initial appointments.

• ✅ Regularization Confirms Legitimacy: Once the government has formally absorbed such individuals, it cannot later turn around and invalidate their appointments on technical grounds.

• Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: The employees had a legitimate expectation of continued service after regularization, especially having served without interruption.

• Balance of Equity and Law: The judgment underlines that law should serve justice, and not become an instrument for undoing settled employment relationships.

 Why This Matters

This judgment offers hope and stability to thousands of public servants across India whose appointments may have faced initial procedural lapses. The court’s message is clear: the government cannot benefit from someone's service for years, regularize them, and then discard them citing initial errors.

It also serves as a precedent for protecting employees from arbitrary removals and stresses the importance of fair treatment and administrative accountability.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s judgment reinforces a vital principle of Indian service jurisprudence—procedural irregularities cannot outweigh the government’s own act of regularization. It bridges the gap between legal technicalities and humane governance.

As public employment grows increasingly competitive and scrutinized, this judgment brings relief to genuine workers who have served diligently, often in difficult conditions, under procedural uncertainties.

Follow for more information about case laws