Mr. Gupta, the State itself regularized nearly 30,000 similarly situated workers under the same Cabinet decision. If the decision was illegal, why did the State regularize them?

My Lord, the past regularizations were undertaken before the legal position was fully crystallized. However, that does not confer a right on others to claim the same illegality. The principle of equality cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality. If the State made a mistake in regularizing some workers, it is not obliged to repeat the same mistake for others. The remedy is not to regularize more illegally, but to ensure that the mistake is not continued. The Court cannot direct the State to continue an illegal practice.

The appellants have served for decades. Does Umadevi intend to penalize long-serving employees who have performed essential functions?

My Lord, Umadevi does not penalize anyone. It simply reaffirms the constitutional requirement of public employment through a fair and transparent process. The fact that someone has served for a long period does not cure the fundamental illegality of their initial engagement. The Constitution does not permit backdoor entries. The proper course is for the State to conduct regular recruitment. The appellants are free to apply. But they cannot claim a right to be regularized without going through the constitutional process.

The State gave undertakings before the High Court to regularize left-out workers. Are those undertakings not binding?

My Lord, an undertaking cannot bind the State to act contrary to law. Umadevi is a binding Constitution Bench judgment. The State is duty-bound to act in accordance with the law as declared by this Court. If the State gave an undertaking that was contrary to law, it was not bound by it. The State took corrective steps by filing a Miscellaneous Application and issuing the 2012 O.M. to bring its actions in conformity with law. This Court should not compel the State to violate the Constitution.

The Single Judge observed that there was no requirement for the State to seek Court permission to implement its own policy. What is your response?

My Lord, the State sought Court permission because it was in doubt about the legality of the regularization in light of Umadevi. That was a bona fide step. The executive can seek judicial clarification when there is ambiguity. There is no abdication of executive authority. The Court declined to grant permission, and the State respected that. The State is now before this Court seeking a final determination. There is nothing improper about this.

For RespondentService Premium

Umadevi Bars Regularization Without Sanctioned Posts — (2026) INSC 523

The appellants were never appointed against sanctioned posts and were not selected through any recognized recruitment process. Under Umadevi, regularization is impermissible.

Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam — (2026) INSC 523

Core Argument

The appellants were never appointed against sanctioned posts and were not selected through any recognized recruitment process. Under Umadevi, regularization is impermissible. The Cabinet decision cannot override the constitutional scheme of public employment. The exception carved out in paragraph 53 of Umadevi applies only to irregular appointments in sanctioned posts, which the appellants do not satisfy.

Key Precedents

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 — Constitution Bench held that regularization of employees appointed de hors sanctioned posts is impermissible; exception applies only to irregular appointments in sanctioned posts for ten years or more without court protection.
State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 — Clarified that one-time measure under Umadevi applies only to employees working in vacant posts and possessing requisite qualification.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in