DR SAKSHI TEWARI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2026:UHC:1417-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY

TH
27 FEBRUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 103 OF 2026


Dr. Sakshi Tewari and others.
…Petitioners
Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others.
…Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners.

: Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Mohd. Shafy, learned
counsel.

Counsel for respondent no. 1. : Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State of

Uttarakhand.
Counsel for respondent no. 2. : Mr. S.S. Lingwal, learned counsel.
Counsel for respondent no. 3. : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned counsel.
JUDGMENT : ( per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. The petitioners are presently working as Assistant
Professors in Soban Singh Jeena University (respondent no. 3
herein). Their initial appointment was on contractual basis, on
a fixed salary, with respondent no. 2. The case of the
petitioners is that, before they were appointed on contractual
basis, they had passed the recruitment process. They claim to
be working without any interruption, or breakage. Some of
the contractual employees, who were senior to the petitioners,
were regularized by the Executive Council of respondent no. 2
on 22.10.2018. The Regularization Rules, 2013 were duly
1

2026:UHC:1417-DB

adopted by respondent no. 2. However, before the case of the
petitioners could be taken up for regularization, the
Regularization Rules came to be challenged before this Court
in WPSB No. 616/2018. The said Writ Petition was decided by
this Court, by judgment dated 22.02.2024, and this Court
ordered modification of the 2013 Rules, so that, after
04.12.2018, only those, who had completed 10 years’ period
of service, would be entitled for regularization. The provision
for regularization of service, on completing five years’ service,
was, accordingly, read down, and was confined to those, who
were regularized prior to 04.12.2018. It seems that,
thereafter, the State Government carried out amendment in
the Regularization Rules.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by issuance of an
advertisement by respondent no. 3 for filling up various posts
of Assistant Professors in the subjects of Commerce,
Sociology, Physics, Psychology, Geography etc. (Annexure No.
2). They are claiming right to be considered for regularization,
and they have also challenged the vires of Clause 4(1) of the
Daily Wage, Work-Charge, Contract, Fixed-Pay, Part Time and
Ad-hoc Employees Regularization Rules, 2013, as amended by
Amendment Rules, 2025, contending that the amendment,
carried out by Amendment Rules, 2025, is against the spirit of
2

2026:UHC:1417-DB

the judgment dated 22.02.2024, passed in WPSB No.
616/2018, and other connected matters.
3. On the last date, we granted time to learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 to obtain
instructions, as to whether the Regularization Rules, 2013, and
the amendments made therein, have been adopted by the
University, or not.
4. Shri S.S. Lingwal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no. 2-University, on instructions, states
that respondent no. 2 had adopted the Regularization Rules
long back.
5. Shri C.S. Rawat, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no. 3-University, submits that the
Regularization Rules have not been adopted by respondent
no.3.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has
invited our attention towards Office Order dated 31.12.2025,
issued by Registrar, Soban Singh Jeena University (respondent
no. 3 herein), whereby a Committee of six persons has been
constituted, under the Chairmanship of Professor P.S. Bisht,
Director M.S.J. Compound, Almora, to consider the case for
regularization of services of daily wagers, work-charge,
3

2026:UHC:1417-DB

contract, fixed-pay, part-time and ad-hoc employees working
in the University.
7. Thus, from the material brought on record, it is
evident that respondent no. 3 has itself constituted a six
member committee to accord consideration to the claim of
regularization of the services of the contractual employees as
well, and which would definitely include the petitioners herein.
8. As the University is yet to take decision, as to
whether the services of the petitioners have to be regularized,
or not, therefore, in our opinion, at this stage, if the University
is permitted to fill up all the posts, it would create
complications, and may also defeat the claim of the petitioners
for regularization.
9. Shri C.S. Rawat, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no. 3-University states that large number
of posts of Assistant Professors are lying vacant, and the
teaching is getting affected. The University may, therefore, be
permitted to go ahead with the recruitment process, and, in
order to secure the interest of the petitioners, pending
consideration of their case for regularization, the University
would not fill up eight vacancies.
4

2026:UHC:1417-DB

10. Having regard to the facts of the case, and the
submissions made, we dispose of the Writ Petition, by
providing that respondent no. 3 may go ahead with the
recruitment process, in pursuance of advertisement dated
10.02.2026, but it shall not fill up eight posts, in pursuance of
the said advertisement, till such time the case of the
petitioners is considered for regularization by the Committee
constituted in pursuance of the order dated 31.12.2025.
11. All pending applications stand disposed of
accordingly.


______________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.



___________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

th
Dt: 27 February, 2026
Rahul
Digitally signed by RAHUL PRAJAPATI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66e
61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A19
2FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4
898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI
Date: 2026.02.27 16:08:00 +05'30'
RAHUL
PRAJAPATI
5