In a significant ruling that underscores the primacy of legal procedure over personal discretion, the Calcutta High Court has firmly refused to regularise the service of a panchayat worker from Purba Bardhaman district. The court stated that judicial compassion cannot override constitutional mandates and that appointments made outside statutory frameworks are void from inception.
A Two-Decade Plea for Regularisation
The case involved Gadadhar Rana, a resident of Purba Bardhaman in West Bengal. Rana approached the court in 2019, stating he was appointed as a casual worker at the Mahata Gram Panchayat on November 1, 1999, by the then pradhan. His petition claimed over two decades of "uninterrupted, unblemished and continuous engagement."
His initial appointment was permitted on compassionate grounds, as his father was a regular panchayat employee declared medically unfit. Rana argued before the court that despite his long service, authorities showed "persistent inaction" in regularising his position as a 'panchayat karmee'. He continued to receive a monthly salary of only Rs 7,000 and was denied increments that would have raised his pay to Rs 19,000 by 2010, as per government orders for casual workers. His plea to the court followed this denial of an increased remuneration.
The Legal Battle and Court's Scrutiny
During arguments, Rana's counsel, advocate Sankha Biswas, urged the court to consider his client's lengthy service record to overlook any initial procedural infirmities. He contended that denying regularisation after decades of service was "wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16" of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and equal opportunity in public employment.
However, the state government, represented by advocates Jhuma Chakraborty and Pariksshit Goswami, countered that the appointment was illegal from the very beginning. They submitted that the pradhan had acted outside the statutory framework by facilitating the appointment, effectively allowing Rana to substitute for his father. The government's key argument was that no proper recruitment procedure—such as advertisement, selection committee, or competitive process—was ever followed.
The Landmark Ruling and Its Implications
Delivering the judgment on December 2, 2025, Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay delivered a powerful rebuke to the idea of regularising illegal appointments. The court held that the petitioner's appointment was "void ab initio" (void from the beginning) as it bypassed all mandated procedures.
"Compassion cannot trump the Constitution and sentiment cannot substitute for statutory compliance," Justice Bandyopadhyay observed. "Courts cannot rehabilitate what the statute does not recognise. The remedy of regularisation is, therefore, untenable."
The court emphasised that such discretionary appointments embolden "illegality and prejudice," severely affecting the rights of countless eligible candidates who never get a fair opportunity to compete. It stated unequivocally that Constitutional Courts cannot sanctify anything prohibited by law and that courts must not be sentimental in implementing the law.
This ruling reinforces a strict adherence to recruitment rules in public employment, setting a precedent that long service, however sincere, cannot legitimise an appointment that originated in a violation of statutory procedure. It serves as a stern reminder to authorities that personal discretion cannot replace transparent, merit-based selection processes.
