It is a settled principle that equals must be treated equally, and if persons similarly placed are treated differently without a rational basis, it would amount to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. If two sets of employees stand on the same footing in terms of date of engagement, nature of duties, length of service and eligibility under a declared policy, the State cannot extend a benefit to one large group and deny it to the smaller group without demonstrating a valid distinction. Equality does not allow selective or partial implementation of a policy. Once a policy decision is taken to benefit a defined class, it must be applied uniformly to all who satisfy the prescribed conditions. Once the State chose to regularize a large body of workers forming one identifiable class, it is under a constitutional obligation to treat all eligible members of that class alike. The remaining workers who are left out, though otherwise eligible, cannot be excluded and denied the same benefit. Once the State confers a benefit upon a particular class, it cannot arbitrarily deny the same benefit to others who are identically situated. Treating equals unequally, is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The State is under a higher constitutional obligation to ensure that its actions are just, reasonable and nonarbitrary. The state, as a model employer, bears a heightened constitutional obligation in the discharge of its functions. It must act with probity, fairness and candour, and cannot cloud the disputes involving its employees under narrow technical grounds divorced from their broader constitutional context.
That any solution to the issue of regularization must be undertaken by the State as a policy measure. Regularization, where permissible in law, is an executive function. It falls within the domain of policy and administration. Courts do not grant prior approval to executive decisions. The role of the Court is confined to judicial review, that is, to examine whether a policy or action is constitutionally valid, fair and reasonable. It is not for the Court to authorise the executive to exercise powers which already vest in it.
The executive cannot abdicate its responsibility by placing the burden upon the Court to approve or disapprove the implementation of its own policy. Once a Cabinet decision had been taken and implemented in major proportions, and once undertakings had been given before a constitutional Court, the State was expected to act in furtherance of its intent expressly declared in the policy, subject of course to constitutional confines.
Procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee.