New Delhi, Dec. 26 -- High courts must not only dispense justice by upholding equality and fairness in their judicial role but also embody those constitutional values in their own administrative functioning, the Supreme Court has underlined, warning that discriminatory treatment of employees strikes at the heart of the Constitution's guarantees of non-arbitrariness and reasonableness. "High Courts, being Constitutional courts entrusted to uphold equality and fairness, are expected to encompass such principles within their own administrative functioning as well, and must exemplify the standards of a model employer. Such principles are at the risk of being undermined when discriminatory treatment is meted out to employees similarly situated within the same establishment. Such actions pose grave threat to the sacrosanct principles of non-arbitrariness and reasonableness," held a bench of justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi. The Supreme Court made the observation while setting aside a series of judgments of the Allahabad High Court that denied regularisation to a group of Class-III employees, even as several similarly placed employees were granted the same benefit under orders passed by successive chief justices of the court. The appeals arose from the refusal of the Allahabad High Court to regularise the services of operator-cum-data entry assistants and routine grade clerks who had been appointed on an ad-hoc basis under the powers exercised by the then chief justice under the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976. While numerous employees appointed through the same route were subsequently regularised, the appellants were singled out and denied parity. Calling the distinction "arbitrary, unreasonable and superficial", the Supreme Court held in a judgment last week that employees appointed through an identical channel could not be treated differently merely because their appointment letters carried varying stipulations, such as being labelled "ad-hoc" or containing conditions for an examination that was never conducted. "All three categories of employees were appointed through the same exercise of powers vested in the Chief Justice. sans following the regular recruitment process. Such differential treatment violates the fundamental principle that equals must be treated equally," the bench said, invoking Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The court emphasised that high courts, as constitutional courts, are expected to exemplify the standards of a "model employer", and that discriminatory practices within their own establishments undermine public confidence and pose a "grave threat" to constitutional principles. Rejecting the high court's argument that the cadre had subsequently become defunct due to rule amendments, the bench said later changes could not justify denial of benefits that had already been extended to similarly placed employees. It also brushed aside the contention that the appellants' services had been terminated, holding that the termination itself flowed from an unlawful denial of regularisation. Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to do "complete justice", the Supreme Court directed the reinstatement of the appellants, ordered their regularisation after one year from their initial appointment dates, and granted all consequential benefits except back wages for the period they were out of service. The bench clarified that the ruling was confined to the peculiar facts of the case and would not operate as a precedent....