Termination No Bar to Regularisation of Vet Officers: Raj HC

Termination Cannot Defeat Regularisation: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Regularisation of Veterinary Officers Appointed in 2013

Published: 4 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the State's appeal against a Single Judge's direction to regularise Veterinary Officers appointed in 2013 under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963, whose termination three years later had been set aside by the Court. Applying Jaggo v. Union of India, it held that a termination does not by itself disentitle an employee from regularisation, and called abrupt terminations a mechanism to deprive employees of regular service (paras 3, 9-14).

Key holdings

Termination orders do not by themselves disentitle an employee from regularisation, provided the Uma Devi requirements are otherwise met (para 12).

Uma Devi distinguishes irregular from illegal appointments and does not penalise long, continuous service; Jaggo and Vinod Kumar were applied (paras 11-12).

Abrupt termination is a mechanism to deprive employees of regularisation, and periodic engagement despite perennial work is a device to avoid regular appointment (para 13).

The Single Judge's direction to regularise after ten years counted from initial joining, with consequential benefits, was upheld (paras 9, 13-14).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The respondents were appointed Veterinary Officers in 2013 through a selection process held under an advertisement of 14 March 2013 for 500 posts under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963 (para 3). Three years later the Department abruptly terminated them; the High Court allowed their writ petitions and they continued in service (paras 3, 9). In 2020 they sought regularisation and, when refused, filed a writ petition. On 28 November 2025 a Single Judge directed regularisation after ten years counted from initial joining, with consequential benefits (paras 3, 9). The State appealed, arguing that Rule 26 appointments were urgent temporary ones and that service under court orders cannot count as ten uninterrupted years under Uma Devi (paras 4-6).

Court's Findings

The Bench recorded as undisputed that the respondents were appointed through the 2013 selection process, had served for more than ten years and, after their termination was set aside, have served continuously since 2013 by force of the Court's orders (para 9). The State's only ground was that their service was interrupted by the termination, so Uma Devi barred regularisation (para 10). Rejecting it, the Court relied on Jaggo v. Union of India (20 December 2024), which held that Uma Devi does not penalise long-serving employees whose appointments were irregular rather than illegal, and criticised the misuse of temporary labels and arbitrary termination (para 11). Jaggo, the Bench noted, held that termination orders do not by themselves disentitle an employee from regularisation if the Uma Devi requirements are otherwise met, and Vinod Kumar explained the Uma Devi passage on irregular appointments (para 12). Citing also Dharam Singh, Prem Singh and Bhola Nath, the Court said abrupt termination is 'nothing, but a mechanism' to deprive employees of regularisation, and that periodic engagements despite perennial work are made to escape regular appointment. The Single Judge committed no error (para 13).

Legal Principle

A termination order, later set aside, does not by itself disentitle a long-serving employee from regularisation if the Uma Devi requirements are otherwise met. Abrupt termination and periodic engagement for perennial work cannot be used to deny regularisation to employees appointed through a selection process who have served for over ten years (paras 11-13).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The State's real point was the exception, in the Uma Devi passage quoted at para 12, for employees who continued 'under cover of orders of the courts' (paras 5-6, 12). The Bench answered it through Jaggo rather than by separately analysing that phrase, so similar claims are likely to turn on whether the first appointment was irregular rather than illegal, and on the length of actual service (paras 11-13). The respondents also cited a co-ordinate Bench decision of 16 March 2026 in Mohd. Sadiq, which the judgment records but does not discuss (para 8). On how such service is later counted, compare Punjab School Education Board v. Satnam Singh, where pre-regularisation service counted for pension.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1
Explained Discussed at ¶ 5, 10, 11, 12
Relied on by the State for the point that only irregular appointees who served ten years without court orders could be regularised as a one-time measure (paras 5-6, 10). The Court, through Jaggo and Vinod Kumar, explained that Uma Devi distinguishes irregular from illegal appointments and that its paragraph 53 does not penalise long-serving employees; termination orders do not by themselves disentitle an employee who otherwise meets its requirements (paras 11-12).
Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 (decided on 20.12.2024)
Followed Discussed at ¶ 7, 8, 11, 12
Relied on by the respondents (paras 7-8). The Court quoted its paragraphs 12, 16, 20-21 and 25-26 on long, continuous service, the irregular/illegal distinction and the misuse of 'temporary' labels and arbitrary termination, and applied its holding that termination orders do not by themselves disentitle an employee from regularisation (paras 11-12).
Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2024) 9 SCC 327
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 12
Quoted for its explanation of paragraph 53 of Uma Devi: appointments made through a process mirroring regular recruitment are irregular, not illegal, and long continuous service merits reconsideration of employment status (para 12).

View all precedents (7)

Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited as reiterating the same view on regularisation of long-serving employees (para 13).
Prem Singh v. State of U.P. (2019) 10 SCC 516
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited as reiterating the same view on regularisation of long-serving employees (para 13).
Bhola Nath v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2026 INSC 99 2026 INSC 99
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited as reiterating the same view on regularisation of long-serving employees (para 13).
Mohd. Sadiq v. State of Rajasthan Decided on 16.03.2026 (co-ordinate Bench, Rajasthan High Court)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8
Cited by the respondents: a co-ordinate Bench, following Jaggo, allowed a special appeal and directed regularisation after ten years from initial appointment with consequential benefits (para 8). The judgment records the submission but does not discuss the decision.