MP HC: adverse performance entries relied on to deny regularisation must first be disclosed to the employee

A contractual Administrative Officer at a central government training institute, whose services had been repeatedly extended on the strength of 'satisfactory' confidential reports, challenged the rejection of her claim for regularisation after a five-member committee downgraded three of her assessment periods to 'average' and a fourth to 'poor', relying on an undisclosed note sheet she was never shown or asked to answer. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) reiterated, following the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, that a contractual employee acquires no automatic right to regularisation merely from length of service or repeated extensions; any such claim must be tested against the applicable recruitment rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

But that did not free the respondents to act arbitrarily: citing Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 9 SCC 566, the Court held that any performance entry capable of adversely affecting an employee's career, even one not formally recorded as 'adverse', must be communicated to the employee with a reasonable opportunity to represent against it before being used against her. Finding the disputed note sheet had never been disclosed and its authenticity was itself in dispute, the Court set aside the rejection and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, including verification of the note sheet, without directing regularisation itself.