[Opinion] Legal Implications of Recruitment Rules vis-à-vis “Initial Constitution” on Regularisation of Contractual Employees

Adv. Bhavni Sahai – [2026] 184 taxmann.com 29 (Article)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in Sports Authority of India v. Dr Kulbir Singh Rana, addressed the critical question of interpreting the recruitment rules applicable to contractual employees. The court clarifiedthe legal effect of recruitment rules framed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) for regulating the method of recruitment to certain posts, including “initial constitution.This judgment provides crucial guidance on the rights of contractual employees and the obligations of employers. The judgment also highlights the role of administrative law/service law in safeguarding employees’ interests against arbitrary actions by the Sports Authority of India.

2. Factual Background

The dispute arose following the introduction of the Sports Authority of India (Executive Cadre) Staff Recruitment Rules, 2022 (“2022 Rules”), which sought to restructure SAI’s then workforce. But the respondents, who had been engaged as contractual physiotherapists, were excluded from retention under the 2022 Rules. Instead, the Sports Authority of India (SAI) issued a fresh recruitment notice for similar positions, requiring even the existing contractual employees to reapply. The respondents participated in the selection process, and on 09.02.2023, SAI issued a circular making public disclosure of non-eligible candidates for High Performance Analyst positions on a contractual basis. Being aggrieved, the respondents challenged the recruitment process before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi, by filing an original application (OA).

The Tribunal allowed the application and, inter alia, directed on 04.11.2023 that since the applicants possessed the prescribed qualifications and had been selected through a process of open competition, therefore, their appointment was not ‘illegal’ but irregular and therefore they should be considered as part of the initial constitution as laid down in 2022 rules. Accordingly, the right held by employees working on an ad hoc basis remained intact. Against this order SAI filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. During arguments, counsel appearing for SAI stated that they did not intend to press the writ petition on the merits. They would be satisfied if more time were given to them to comply with the tribunal’s directions for considering the respondents’ case as “initial constituents” as per of the 2022 Rules. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of on 28.02.2024 by extending the time granted by the Tribunal to the petitioners for passing orders after considering the case of the respondent as ‘Initial Constituents’ as per 2022(4) Staff Recruitment Rules dated 03.08.2022 by eight weeks from the date of the judgment. However, SAI did not consider their case for “initial constituents.” Therefore, the respondent filed a contempt petition before the Tribunal (being Contempt Petition No. 140 of 2024) for willful disobedience of the order dated 04.11.2023, passed by the Tribunal. The High Court, however, dismissed the recall applications.

Despite the counsel’s statement, SAI did not consider their case for “initial constituents”; instead, it filed two recall applications against the above order of the High Court on 28.02. 2024 on the ground that the statement made by the counsel seeking time to comply with the order of the Tribunal, was made without the instructions from SAI and neither did SAI filed an affidavit stating that they have not instructed their counsel to make such a statement, instead the only ground which the counsel took for SAI was that they had actually misunderstood the order of the Tribunal. The High Court, however, dismissed the recall applications by stating that it is not denied by the counsel appearing for SAI that the statement made by the counsel seeking time to comply with the order of the Tribunal, was made without the instructions from SAI and neither did SAI filed an affidavit stating that they have not instructed their counsel to make such a statement, instead the only ground which the counsel took for SAI was that they had actually misunderstood the order of the Tribunal. Thereupon, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

3. Areas of Conflict

A reading of the Supreme Court decision reveals the following areas of conflict:

1. Whether the respondents are recognisedas ‘Initial Constituents’ as per 2022(4) Staff Recruitment Rules?
2. Whether the recall applications that the statement made by the counsel seeking time to comply with the order of the Tribunal without the instructions from SSI maintainable?
3. Whether the decision of SAI to terminate the services services of the respondents and advertise new positions was validly made?

Click Here To Read The Full Article