Bombay High Court: seasonal Haj Committee staff, however long engaged, have no right to regularisation

A group of seasonal clerks, peons and sweepers engaged by the Haj Committee of India's Mumbai office over several years had their engagements discontinued in November 2023. They sought reinstatement or regularisation, arguing the Committee was recruiting afresh for similar posts and had even passed a resolution offering to re-engage them if they withdrew their pending writ petition, which they said showed an improper pressure tactic. The Committee responded that the fresh contractual posts it was advertising were for specialised roles, such as visa-processing and IT support, at its New Delhi office, not Mumbai, where it was already adequately staffed, and that one employee's extension was based on a specific, temporary operational need.

The Bombay High Court held that, while the resolution's conditional offer did suggest an arm-twisting strategy, that alone could not confer a legal right the petitioners did not otherwise have. Applying the Supreme Court's rulings in State of Maharashtra v. Anita and Teri Oat Estates v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, it held that persons engaged purely on a contractual or seasonal basis to meet intermittent work, who accepted that nature of engagement, cannot claim regularisation or a right to a permanent post where none has been sanctioned, and that sympathy cannot substitute for an established legal right, even under the Supreme Court's own extraordinary powers under Article 142. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioners applying afresh for any regular posts that may later be created.