The Kerala High Court has taken up a contempt petition alleging that the state government has continued to regularise government jobs in violation of an earlier court order, and has sought an official response from the government ahead of the next hearing scheduled for February 2, 2026. The developments emerged during proceedings in Kochi where a Division Bench examined claims that recent job regularisations undermine constitutional recruitment norms.
Petitioner M. Abdul Vahid contends that the government’s January 3, 2026 order includes the regularisation of part-time workers — such as librarians and ayahs — without adhering to due process, despite a 2025 High Court ruling that restricted regularisation to a one-time provision for 543 employees and required future appointments to comply with constitutional mandates. According to the petitioner, the continued practice of regularising temporary and irregular posts without transparent competitive procedures amounts to a blatant disregard for judicial directions, warranting contempt proceedings against senior officials, including the Chief Secretary.
The court directed the state government to file its counter-affidavit, outlining its stance on whether the contested regularisations were lawful and compliant with the earlier judgment. It also flagged a related case concerning temporary appointments at the Agency for Non-Conventional Energy and Rural Technology (ANERT), where the bench ordered that no further appointments be made without explicit High Court approval.
The 2025 judgment under challenge had limited regularisation to a specific group of employees and underscored that regular appointments must follow constitutional norms enshrined in Articles 14 and 16, emphasizing equal opportunity and merit-based recruitment. Critics of irregular government job regularisations argue that bypassing these norms erodes public trust and harms aspiring candidates who rely on transparent competitive processes. The next hearing on this contentious contempt plea is anticipated to clarify the government’s position and how it justifies its actions under existing legal frameworks.
