Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments for regularization benefits

In evaluating claims for employment regularization, a clear legal distinction exists between appointments that are strictly illegal and those that are merely irregular. Appointments made against sanctioned vacant posts after issuing public advertisements and conducting open selection processes in accordance with procedural rules cannot be branded as illegal appointments. Merely because the initial appointment order designated the engagement as contractual or temporary, such engagement constitutes at most a minor procedural irregularity that remains amenable to regularization upon the completion of long and continuous service under State policy. (Bhola Nath v. The State of Jharkhand | 2026 INSC 99)