Panjab University And Anr vs Nishi And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(267)
1. LPA-44-2026(O&M) Date of Decision: 01.09.2026
Panjab University & Anr. --Appellants
Versus
Nishi & Ors. --Respondents
2. LPA-224-2026(O&M)

Panjab University & Anr. --Appellants
Versus
Surinder Singh & Anr. --Respondents
3. LPA-228-2026(O&M)
Panjab University & Anr. --Appellants
Versus
Dr. Prabhjot Kaur Walia & Ors. --Respondents
4. LPA-229-2026(O&M)
Panjab University & Anr. --Appellants
Versus
Dr. Seema --Respondent
5. LPA-281-2026(O&M)
Panjab University & Anr. --Appellants
Versus
Richa Thakur & Ors. --Respondents
6. LPA-288-2026(O&M)
Panjab University & Ors. --Appellants
Versus
Ashim Kumar & Ors. --Respondents
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -2-
7. LPA-289-2026(O&M)
Panjab University & Anr. --Appellants
Versus
Sukhdev Singh & Ors. --Respondents
8. LPA-298-2026(O&M)
Panjab University & Anr. --Appellants
Versus
Harpreet Singh & Anr. --Respondents
9. LPA-300-2026(O&M)
Panjab University & Anr. --Appellants
Versus
Dr. Inderjot Kaur & Anr. --Respondents
10. LPA-443-2026(O&M)
Panjab University & Anr. --Appellants
Versus
Ritu Mittal & Anr. --Respondents
11. LPA-1900-2026(O&M)
Panjab University --Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Sazid & Ors. --Respondents
12. LPA-1912-2026(O&M)
Panjab University --Appellant
Versus
Ruby & Ors. --Respondents
13. LPA-1925-2026(O&M)
Panjab University --Appellant
Versus
Dr. Rajni Rajan Chauhan & Ors. --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV.
Present:- Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the
appellants in LPA-44-2026.
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -3-
Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for the
appellant in LPA Nos.1900, 1912 and 1925
of 2026.
Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for the
appellants in LPA No.1050 of 2026 and
for the private respondents in LPA Nos.44,
288, 281 of 2026.
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate for the
respondents in LPA-228-2026.
Mr. Nikhil Kaushik, Advocate for the
respondents no.3 to 10 in LPA-1900-2026,
for respondents no.1, 3 to 8 and 10 in
LPA-1912-2026, for respondents no.1 to 3
in LPA-1925-2026.
Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the
respondents in LPA Nos.298, 300, 229,
289, 224 and 226 of 2026.
*
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI .J (Oral)
1. In the present bunch of appeals, the challenge is to the
judgement dated 06.11.2025 and identical judgements passed by the learned
Single Judge, directing the Panjab University, Chandigarh to regularize the
services of the respondents-teachers, who are working on the various posts
including that of Assistant Professors, Senior Assistant Professors and
Associate Professors. Some of the respondents are working in constituent
colleges of the Panjab University and some are working with the Panjab
University, Chandigarh itself on the posts mentioned hereinabove.
2. For the purpose of the present judgement, the facts are being
extracted from LPA-44-2026 (Panjab University and another Vs. Nishi and
others).
3. An advertisement was issued by the Panjab University,
Chandigarh inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -4-
Professors on temporary basis for its constituent colleges. Keeping in view
the various terms and conditions and the eligibility mentioned therein, the
respondents herein appeared for the interview and upon being selected by
the Selection Committee constituted by the Panjab University, they came to
be appointed in constituent colleges on the post of Assistant Professor on
temporary basis for a specific period of time i.e. a particular academic
session. It was further mentioned that they can be allowed to continue for
the period they have been appointed or the regular selection is made,
whichever is earlier.
3.1. It is a conceded position between the parties that for the
last more than one decade, the respondents are continuing on the posts on
which they were appointed.
4. It may be noticed that though the appointment was termed as
“Temporary” but the post against which respondents were appointed, were
duly sanctioned posts. Even it is a conceded fact that the respondents are
getting the regular pay scale and all related benefits as admissible to the
regular appointees except their appointment being regularized and they be
granted the status of a permanent employee.
5. By placing reliance on the settled principle of law settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi
(2006) 4 SCC 1 , which was recently interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Jaggo Versus Union of India and others, 2024 INSC
1034, Shripal and another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144
and Dharam Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another 2025 INSC
998 , the claim was raised for regularizing the services of teachers who had
rendered more than a decade of service with the respondents, though, on a
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -5-
regular pay scale against the sanctioned posts.
6. Upon notice of motion having been issued in the writ petitions,
the respondent-Panjab University (appellant herein) appeared and resisted
the said claim on the ground that at the time when the recruitment was
made, the Selection Committee which was constituted, was not in
accordance with the recommendations of the U.G.C and therefore, even if
the respondents herein fulfill the requisite academic qualifications required
for the posts in question coupled with the fact that they have worked for
more than a decade, their services cannot be regularized as, the University
has decided to advertise the said posts to be filled on regular basis by
constituting a Selection Committee in accordance with law and the
respondents herein can compete for the said posts rather than claiming
regularization.
7. The learned Single Judge considered the said issue and has
allowed the writ petitions vide its order dated 06.11.2025 and other orders
passed as all the similar orders have been bunched together for the decision
in the present appeals; keeping in view the settled principle of law that there
has to be a certainty in the life of an employee qua the status on which
he/she remained in service and the recent pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Apex Court that an employee who has already worked for a period of 10
years, is entitled for the claim of regularization; thereby directing the Panjab
University to regularize the services of the respondents herein on the posts
on which they were working. The said orders passed by the learned Single
Judge are challenged in appeals at the hands of the Panjab University.
8. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant-Panjab
University submit that though the respondents have been working with the
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -6-
Panjab University and its constituent colleges but as their initial
appointments were temporary, their services cannot be regularized till a
Regular Selection Committee is formed and that too by giving due
opportunity to all eligible thereby to compete for the said posts. Therefore,
the directions given by the learned Single Judge to regularize the services of
the respondents on the posts, which have been held by them, is incorrect as,
there is a possibility that at the time when the respondents were selected a
decade ago, the meritorious candidates could not have applied for the same
for the reason that the posts advertised were on temporary basis. Hence, the
posts in question should have been allowed to be filled up by giving due
opportunity to all the concerned by advertising the same rather than
regularizing the services of the respondents on the ground that they had held
their posts for more than one decade. Learned counsels appearing on behalf
of the appellant-University further submit that though, certain directions
have been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgements in
Jaggo (supra) , Shripal (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra) but the same
have been considered thereafter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Civil Appeal No.7120-2026 and other connected cases decided on
07.05.2026 titled Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and others
and the benefit as being claimed by respondents herein which was granted
by the learned Single Judge, has been declined. Therefore, in view of the
said settled principle of law in Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra) which has
come into operation after the judgement of the learned Single Judge was
passed, the appeals filed by the appellants, should be allowed.
9. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents contends that at the time when the respondents were selected,
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -7-
due opportunity was given to all to compete for the said posts as there were
advertisements though, to fill the posts on temporary basis and in certain
cases even the word “Temporary” was missing but in actual, appointment
was given to all on temporary basis. Such temporary appointments have
continued for more than 15 years as of now and therefore, the grant of
benefit of regularization keeping in view the settled principle of law by the
learned Single Judge is perfectly valid as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has reiterated that a continued temporary appointment for more than a
decade by an employer is not permissible and such appointees are entitled
for a permanent status in life and directions have been given to regularize
the services of such employees.
9.1. Learned senior counsel for the respondents further submits that
even the services of the ad hoc Lecturers, who were appointed without
following the U.P.S.C recruitment process, have been directed to be
regularised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing orders in Union of
India Vs. K.Velajagan and others, (2025) SCC Online SC 837, decided
on 04.02.2025. Hence, the grant of benefit by the learned Single Judge is
perfectly valid and legal and is in consonance with the settled principle of
law.
10. We have heard learned counsels for the appellant-University as
well as the learned senior counsel and other counsels appearing on behalf of
the private respondents at length and have gone through the records with
their able assistance.
11. The issue which has been raised before this Court is whether,
the services of the teachers, who have been continuing on their posts for
more than 1 ½ decade have been rightly directed to be regularised or the
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -8-
same was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge.
11.1. As per the details of facts as mentioned hereinabove, the posts
against which the respondents were appointed were duly advertised and all
eligible candidates were invited to compete for the said posts although, to
be filled on temporary basis but in some of the cases, even the
advertisement never stated whether the posts are to be filled on regular or on
temporary basis. However, ultimately the appointments so made, after
considering the claim of all eligibles, who competed, were made on
temporary basis. The said appointments were for particular academic
session and with the condition that their services will stand terminated in
case the regular incumbents join before the completion of the tenure for
which the respondents were appointed. It is a conceded fact that the said
arrangement has continued for approximately more than 1 ½ decade in some
of the cases.
12. It may be noticed that the appointments which have continued
for approximately more than 1 ½ decade should either be termed as a
stopgap arrangement or the appellant-University should treat the said
appointment as valid appointments so as to allow the respondents to
continue as regular employees rather than making the respondents to wander
in uncertainty in their lives. A temporary appointment is only a stopgap
arrangement for the meantime the posts are filled up on regular basis but in
case, the University decides to continue with such appointment for a period
of approximately more than 1 ½ decade, it means that though initial view of
the appellant-University was to create a stopgap arrangement appointment
only but later on the same was changed so as to allow such teachers to
continue serving on the said posts for decades. Hence, after a period of one
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -9-
decade when the appellant-University allowed the employees to continue on
such appointments, it cannot be said or the appellant-University cannot be
allowed to contend that the appointments of the respondents remained
temporary appointments on stopgap arrangement even after rendering a
service of approximately more than 1 ½ decade. The long tenure itself
shows that not only the service of the respondents was needed but even the
conduct of the teachers demonstrated that they were effectively discharging
the duties attached to the said posts. Hence, the argument which has been
projected before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
temporary appointment, stopgap arrangement had been directed to be
regularised, cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case mentioned hereinabove.
13. Further, the law needs to be noted as to how such appointees
need to be dealt with. Whether their services should be regularized or the
posts held by them should be advertised on regular basis and the
respondents be made to compete with younger generation in order to get
selected for such posts. Once, the appointment has continued for
approximately 1 ½ decade, asking such teachers to compete with the
younger generation to get selected for the same post, is too much to be
asked for. Competing with younger generation cannot be allowed to be
treated as a level playing field. Hence, the question arises that whether such
appointees should be granted the status of regular employees or not.
14. As mentioned earlier, the posts against which the respondents
were appointed, were duly advertised and claim of all eligible candidates
was considered. It is a conceded fact that all the respondents fulfilled the
requisite educational qualifications required for the said post on which
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -10-
he/she is working. Further, the posts against which the appointments were
made, were sanctioned posts. Last but not the least, the regular pay scales
admissible to the appointees have been given. Hence, the only issue is
regarding considering the posts of the respondents as regular appointments
rather than being treated as a temporary appointment.
15. In view of the above mentioned facts, it is clear that except the
designation to be given to be treated as a regular employment, all other
benefits are already being enjoyed by the respondents from the date they
were appointed. Hence, only their status has been changed by the learned
Single Judge from temporary to permanent without there being any
additional benefit admissible to the respondents on account of regularization
of their services. Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
arguments raised by the learned counsels for the appellants that a temporary
appointment has been directed to be regularized, cannot be accepted as, a
temporary appointment, has been given the color of the regular appointment
in view of the fact that all the ingredients of regular appointment existed
since day one in respect of the posts in question.
16. Further, law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Jaggo (supra), Shripal (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra) qua
regularization of the services of temporary employees. Learned counsels for
the appellant-University have not been able to dispute the fact that as per
the settled principle of law, the benefit of regularization can be given by the
competent Court of Law in case the employee has continued working on
such post for a period of more than 10 years.
17. It may be noticed that a similar issue came up for consideration
before this Court in CWP-2494-2018 decided on 29.04.2026 titled as
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -11-
Harjeet Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others and the benefit
of regularization has been given to the teachers who were working
continuously including the one who were working on the post of Assistant
Professor/Lecturer. The relevant paragraphs of the judgement is as under:-
“4. The only question which arises for consideration of
this Court as of now is whether Dr. Mohamad Munis-petitioner
No.4, who is working since January 2007 can claim the benefit
of regularization of his services or not.
5. As per the settled principle of law, any employee, who
has worked for more than 10 years, is entitled to be considered
for regularization of services and as per the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo Versus Union of
India and others, 2025 (1) SLR 1, Shripal and another v.
Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144 and Dharam
Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another , the said benefit
has to be extended keeping in view the number of years of
service rendered. The relevant paras of the judgment of
Dharam Singh’s case is as under:-
“9. Moreover, it is undisputed that the nature of work
performed by the appellants, i.e. sorting and scrutiny of
applications, dispatch and office support, and driving, has
been continuous and integral to the Commission’s functioning
since their engagement between 1989 and 1992. The
Commission itself moved for sanction of fourteen posts and
furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers including the
appellants. That consistent internal demand, coupled with
uninterrupted utilisation of the appellants’ labour on regular
office hours, fortifies the conclusion that the duties are
perennial. To continue extracting such work for decades while
pleading want of sanctioned strength is a position that cannot
be sustained.
10. It must be noted that the premise of “no vacancy” is, in
any event, contradicted by the evidence on record. An RTI
LUCKY
response of 22.01.2010 received from the office of Respondent
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -12-
No.2 indicated existence of Class-IV vacancies. Furthermore,
I.A. No. 109487 of 2020 filed before this Court by the
appellants specifically pointed to at least five vacant Class-
IV/Guard posts and one vacant Driver post within the
establishment. That application also set out the names of
similarly situated daily wagers who were regularised earlier
within the same Commission. No rebuttal was filed to the I.A.
The unrebutted assertion of vacancies and the comparison with
those who received regularisation materially undermine the
High Court’s conclusion that no vacancy existed and reveal
unequal treatment vis-à-vis persons similarly placed. Selective
regularisation in the same establishment, while continuing the
appellants on daily wages despite comparable tenure and
duties with those regularized, is a clear violation of equity.
11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed
by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non- suit the
appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the
challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the
constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge
to the State’s arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the
employer’s own acknowledgement of need and decades of
continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand,
Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal
appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse
the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work
itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its
house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v.
Union of India and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra)
cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through
long-term “ad hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or
the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted
over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply
with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from
Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -13-
“14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on
Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary
employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence
of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as
frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between
appointments that are “illegal” and those that are
“irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they
meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot
serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting
for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate
recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-
based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent
horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh
recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage
status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously
rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning
more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not
produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such
records- despite directions to do so-allows an adverse
inference under well established labour jurisprudence. Indian
labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or
contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is
permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil
ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be
dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the
absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it
would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of
indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a
recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the
following paragraphs:
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job
security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -14-
led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements,
often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair
treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting
workers and undermining labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness
and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities
engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors
the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also
sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
. ………
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees,
particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted
forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of
temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or
seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to
evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These
practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work
that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of
an institution are often labelled as “temporary” or
“contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular
employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the
dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. Arbitrary
Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed
without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This
practice undermines the principles of natural justice and
subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of
the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find
themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development,
promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant
in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -15-
their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being
equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly
resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees,
effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another.
This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to
offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees
are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension,
provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when
their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects
them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases
of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.”
12. We also note the Commission’s affidavit filed in
21.04.2025 pursuant to the order of this Court dated
27.03.2025, wherein reference has been made to a supervening
reorganisation in 2024, whereby the U.P. Higher Education
Services Commission was merged into the U.P. Education
Services Selection Commission and, by a Government Order of
05.07.2024, certain Group-C posts were sanctioned while
Class-IV/Driver requirements were proposed to be met through
outsourcing. We must point out however, that supervening
structural change cannot extinguish accrued claims or pending
proceedings. Successor body steps into the shoes of its
predecessor subject to liabilities and obligations arising from
the prior regime. More fundamentally, a later policy to
outsource Class- IV/Driver functions cannot retrospectively
validate earlier arbitrary refusals, nor can it be invoked to
deny consideration to workers on whose continuous services
the establishment relied for decades.
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal
(Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to
perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement
practices where the work is inherently perennial. The
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -16-
Commission’s further contention that the appellants are not
“fulltime” employees but continue only by virtue of interim
orders also does not advance their case. That interim
protection was granted precisely because of the long history of
engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State’s
refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases
entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the
legality of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also
declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not
specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003.
However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely
challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself
directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later
rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such
circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to
examine the legality of the State’s stance in refusing sanction,
whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than
dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division
Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming
the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or
the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in
reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about “rules”
and “vacancy” while ignoring the core question of
arbitrariness in the State’s refusal to sanction posts despite
perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the
impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The
State’s refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as
they concern the Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation
of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial
ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand
quashed.
16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -17-
State (here referring to both the Union and the State
governments) is not a mere market participant but a
constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the
backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring
public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year
after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its
sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term
extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes
confidence in public administration and offends the promise of
equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in
public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness,
reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism”
thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments
must keep and produce accurate establishment registers,
muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must
explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement
over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If
“constraint” is invoked, the record should show what
alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers
were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with
Articles 14 , 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity
to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not
sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should
inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices
running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the
appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and
the material indicating vacancies and comparator
regularisations, we issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All
appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002,
the date on which the High Court directed a fresh
recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by
the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -18-
purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P.
Education Services Selection Commission) shall create
supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III
(Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or
equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On
regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than
the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with
protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants
shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale
as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service
shall count from the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant
shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay
and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay
level for the post from time to time, and
(b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002
until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case
may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim
directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be
released within three months and if in default, the unpaid
amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from
the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired
shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002
until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under
clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other
terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be
paid within three months of this Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any
other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal
representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under
clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all
terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i),
within three months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -19-
Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the
Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission
or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of
compliance before this Court within four months of this
Judgement.”
6. A bare perusal of the above would show that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has gone upto to extend that where an
employee has worked for approximately two decades, even the
ineligibility qua qualification or that no post exists for
consideration for regularization should be taken and such
appointment which is continuing for two decades, should be
regularized. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
Dharam Singh’s case (supra) had directed the authorities
concerned to regularize service of the employees keeping in
view the long and undisputed service of the employee
concerned, the admitted continuous nature of their duties and
also the comparison of the long term, irregular or ad hoc
employers with their fully regularized counterparts and similar
is the view taken in Uma Devi’s case (supra) and Shripal’s
case (supra) as discussed in the Dharam Singh’s case (supra).
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
UPSC submits that petitioner No.4 is working on a Class-I post
and therefore, his services could not be regularized. Qua the
said argument, it may be noticed that CM-2050-51-CWP-2026
in/and CWP-2494-2018 (O&M) 10 the benefit of regularization
has been granted recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India while considering the policy issued by the Government of
Haryana in Civil Appeal bearing No.1996-2024 , titled as
“ Madan Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others ”,
where the benefit of regularization has been allowed in favour
of an Assistant Professor whereas, the post on which the
respondent is working is that of a Lecturer i.e. lower than
Assistant Professor. Further, in the said judgment of Madan
Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP-Civil
Appeal No.2868-2018 decided on 04.02.2025, titled as Union
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -20-
of India Vs. K. Velajagan and others , the Assistant
Professors/Lecturers working on hourly basis have been held
to be entitled to be considered for regularization of their
services, keeping in view the number of years of service they
have rendered.”
18. A bare perusal of the above reproduced law would show that on
the similar ground the benefit of regularization has been given even to the
teachers working on the posts of Lecturer/Assistant Professor/Associate
Professor. However, the said fact has gone unrebutted at the hands of
learned counsels for the appellants.
19. The only argument raised is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India while after considering all the landmark judgements on regularization
of service has declined the benefit of regularization in the case of Sunil
Kumar Yadav (supra). It may be noticed that though the said argument has
been raised but the facts in the said judgement, are entirely different than the
facts in the present case. In Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra), the teachers were
working with the State of Jharkhand under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan and
that too on contractual basis and were seeking regularization on the post of
Assistant Teacher or Sahayak Acharya. It was under these circumstances,
that when the regularization was being claimed against another post than on
the one on which they were working, certain observations had been made
which need to be appreciated keeping in view the facts of the said case only.
20. Another distinguishing factor is that in Sunil Kumar Yadav
(supra), the contractual employees were working under a scheme and were
wanting regularization of their services with the State of Jharkhand, which
is not the fact in the present case. Further, in order to give representation to
the contractual para-teachers working under Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, the
State had framed the rules reserving posts for them in the cadre of Assistant
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -21-
Teacher or Sahayak Acharya by making direct recruitment, which is not the
fact in the present case as, the regularization is being sought for the post on
which the respondents were not only recruited but have been working for
the last approximately 1 ½ decade.
21. Further, even in Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra) a direction had
been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the posts of Assistant
Teacher/Sahayak Acharya which are to be filled from the contractual para-
teachers, the benefit of regularization be given to them to the quota
permissible under the rules, which fact shows that wherever the State had
made the contractual para teachers eligible to compete, they were not made
to compete but were regularized against such available posts. Hence, the
said judgement which is being made applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case involves totally different facts.
22. Further, the effort of the learned counsels for the appellant-
University is to apply the judgement of Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra) to the
facts of the present case only by reading certain paragraphs of the
judgement. When the judgement is read in isolation of the facts, a different
meaning can be inferred but when such words are read keeping in mind the
controversy involved therein, then, the meaning could be different. Hence,
the contention of the learned counsels for appellant-University that the said
judgement be made applicable on the respondents, cannot be accepted as the
said judgement is given on entirely different set of facts, which are totally
absent in the present case.
23. Learned counsels for appellant-University have cited certain
other judgements in support of their contentions, which are as under:-
i) J&K Public Service Commission v. Narinder Mohan 1994
(2) SCC 630.
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -22-
ii) Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. V. Dr. P.Sambasiva Rao 1996(7)
SCC 499.
iii) Mandeep Singh v. State of Punjab 2025 INSC 834.
iv) Shilpa Jindal v. Central Administrative Tribunal 2016 (3)
SCT 486.
v) Ganesh Digamber v. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1417.
vi) Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwal v. State of J&K 1996(9) SCC
619.
24. Learned counsels for appellant-University have argued that
though regularization can be granted to a Class-III or a Class-IV employee
but not to a teacher, who is working on a Class-I post. Hence, the said
distinction which has been explicitly carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Narinder Mohan (supra) should be made
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
25. It may be noticed that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in K.Velajagan (supra) , the benefit of regularization has
been given even to the Assistant Professor working. It might be a
possibility that the earlier view was different but once a subsequent view
has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for regularizing the services
of the Assistant Professors, which is a conceded fact, denying the benefit on
the basis of the earlier settled principle of law will not be appropriate in
terms of judicial propriety. The view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
recently, is being relied upon to grant the benefit of regularization even to
the respondents who are working on the teaching posts of Lecturer/Assistant
Professor/Associate Professor.
26. Learned counsel for the appellant-University submitted that the
delay which has occurred for not making a regular selection is that the
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -23-
constituent colleges in the remote/border areas were only formulated on
experimental basis in the year 2011-2012, though, such colleges are
continuing and they will continue keeping in view the educational needs of
the time. Hence, there was a delay in making direct recruitment by issuance
of advertisement. It may be noticed that the delay could be on any ground
but it is a matter of fact that the respondents have worked for approximately
more than 1 ½ decade on such posts. The issue is only to ensure that the
students in such colleges are given excellent teaching. Nothing has come
on record that the respondents are lagging behind in any manner in respect
of the duties which have been envisaged for the posts in question. Not even
a single blot has been brought to the notice of this Court as of now but still
when the directions are being given, the appellants will be within their
jurisdiction to look into the record of each teacher before complying with
the present order and in case there is any grave misconduct on part of any
teacher, any appropriate action may be taken by the appellants including
non-grant of the benefit of regularization after giving due reasons for such
decision.
27. Hence, the said argument that the delay should not come in
favour of respondents to grant the benefit of regularization, cannot be
accepted.
28. It may be noticed that any other post which has been advertised
by the appellant-University on which no direction for regularization of the
employees working on the same has been given, the same can be advertised.
Only the posts against which the respondents herein are working will be
dealt with by this order so as to regularize their services and in case any
such post has already been advertised, the same be treated as withdrawn by
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -24-
the appellant-University keeping in view the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, which has been upheld as directions have already been given
to regularize the services of the respondents on such posts.
29. Further, though, directions have been given to treat the
respondents as regular employees but such directions are modified that the
appellant-University will consider the claim of all the respondents for
regularization in terms of the decisions rendered hereinabove and services
of such respondents be regularized in case there is nothing against the work
and conduct of any such employee and they have completed a minimum of
10 years of actual service with the appellant-University while working in
any constituent college up to today.
30. Even if, any respondent does not fulfil the requisite of 10 years
experience upto today but are about to fulfill in the near future i.e. before
the order is passed by the appellant-University qua the other respondents,
such respondent be not treated ineligible and in case on the date of
regularization of the services of the employees concerned, such employee
has also completed 10 years of service, then, benefit of regularization also
be granted to him/her.
31. Further, it may be noticed that in case such employee continues
working and completes 10 years of service hereinafter, the benefit of this
judgement be given as and when such employee completes such required
period of service. It is mentioned and conceded by the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that they will only claim the
regularization prospectively and not retrospectively. Though, it may be
noticed that for all intents and purposes they were working and getting the
regular pay scales, even the prospective regularization will not cause any
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

LPA-44-2026(O&M) & connected appeals -25-
prejudice to them but any experience already gained will be treated as valid
experience to be considered for further promotion.
32. Let such order of regularization be passed within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and
services of no respondent will be terminated within the aforesaid period of
three months.
33. The judgement is dictated in open court in the presence of
learned counsel for the parties.
34. No further argument is raised.
35. The present set of appeals are dismissed accordingly.
36. Pending Misc. applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
37. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected files.
( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
01.09.2026 (MINDERJEET YADAV)
lucky JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
LUCKY
2026.09.08 15:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh