Dr Smita Arora vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 11 May, 2026
st
Pronounced on: 01 July, 2026
st
Uploaded on: 01 July, 2026

+ W.P.(C) 8817/2018, CM APPL. 33903/2018, CM APPL. 28352-
28353/2024, CM APPL. 1302/2025, CM APPL. 15737/2025 & CM
APPL. 17015-17016/2026

DR SMITA ARORA .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Sriram Parakkat, Mr. Anandhu S.
Nair, Ms. Maneesha Sunilkumar, Mr.
Arya Suresh, Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for
GNCTD Services with Mrs. Tania
Ahlawat, Mr. N.K Singh, Ms. Aliza
Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
1. The Petitioner, Dr. Smita Arora, teaches in the department of Kriya
Sharir at Chaudhary Brahm Prakash Ayurved Charak Sansthan “ CBPACS ”,
an autonomous institution under the Government of NCT of Delhi. She was
nd th
offered appointment on 22 September, 2010 and joined on 28 October,
2010. Though the offer described the engagement as contractual, she has
continued in the same institution and discipline, first through successive
extensions and thereafter under interim protection in these proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 1 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

The Controversy
th
2. The writ petition challenges the office order dated 11 August, 2018,
whereby the Petitioner was informed that her contractual services as
Assistant Professor, Kriya Sharir, would stand “ discontinued after 15 days
of issuance ” of that order. She also seeks consequential directions for
continuance in service and regularisation. The Respondents maintain that
her appointment was never against a sanctioned post, that the only post of
Lecturer, Kriya Sharir advertised in 2009 had been filled by the appointment
of one Dr. Rakesh Roushan, and that the Petitioner’s later engagement was a
contractual arrangement which conferred no right to regular appointment.
3. The controversy is narrow but consequential: whether the Respondents
may treat the Petitioner as a mere contractual appointee against an
unsanctioned post, despite her entry through a public recruitment process,
her deployment in a core teaching discipline, and CBPACS’ own reliance on
her presence for regulatory and academic purposes.
Factual Background
th
4. On 9 September, 2009, CBPACS issued an advertisement inviting
applications for several posts, including fourteen posts of Lecturer in
different departments. One post of Lecturer in Kriya Sharir was among the
advertised vacancies. The advertisement prescribed the pay scale of INR
15,600-39,100 with Grade Pay of INR 5,400, NPA and other admissible
allowances. The advertisement further stipulated that, in the event suitable
candidates were not available, appointment of retired Government servants
“ on contract basis will be considered ”.
5. The Petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer, Kriya Sharir. A
th
screening test was conducted on 16 April, 2010. According to the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 2 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

Respondents, twenty-two candidates were shortlisted. The Petitioner secured
75 marks and was placed at serial no. 6 in the result. The candidate placed at
serial no. 1 secured 87 marks, while the candidates placed at serial nos. 2
and 3 secured 81 and 77 marks respectively. The candidates placed at serial
nos. 4 and 5 also secured 75 marks each. The Petitioner was thereafter called
for interview.
th
6. Interviews were conducted on 7 May, 2010. According to the
Respondents, the Selection Committee selected Dr. Roushan for the post of
th
Lecturer, Kriya Sharir. An offer of appointment was issued to him on 6
th
June, 2010 and he joined service on 9 July, 2010.
nd
7. On 22 September, 2010, the Petitioner was offered appointment as
Lecturer, Kriya Sharir. The letter stated that the offer was made “ on the
basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee ”. It described the
engagement as contractual, initially for eleven months, on consolidated
remuneration comprising INR 15,600, Grade Pay of INR 5,400, NPA at
25%, HRA and DA in accordance with Government of NCT of Delhi orders.
It also permitted termination by one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof
and stated that the engagement would not confer any right to regular
appointment. The Petitioner accepted the offer and commenced her duties in
th
Kriya Sharir on 28 October, 2010.
th
8. The contemporaneous record includes a communication dated 6
October, 2010 addressed by the Project Director of CBPACS to the
President of the Central Council of Indian Medicine [“ CCIM ”] in the context
of CBPACS’ request for permission to commence an Ayurvedic medical
college. Referring to deficiencies pointed out by the regulatory authority,
including shortage of teaching faculty, the communication recorded, under
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 3 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

the Department of Kriya Sharir, “ Lecturer: Dr. Smita Arora - Acceptance
received ”. The communication further stated that CBPACS was in the
process of establishing a “ State of the Art ” institution and that no
compromise could be made with the quality of teaching faculty.
th
9. The Petitioner relies upon material relating to the 4 Meeting of the
th
Governing Council held on 8 April, 2011. As per the record, the names of
Dr. Roushan and the Petitioner were both reflected in relation to the
Department of Kriya Sharir. The Petitioner’s position was shown against a
post described as one which had “ not yet been sanctioned ”, while the salary
arrangement was stated to be linked to the sanctioned post of
Reader/Lecturer, Kriya Sharir. The record further indicates that a proposal
for sanction of the post had been submitted.
th
10. On 27 August, 2012, the Petitioner’s engagement was extended for a
th
period of three years from her initial date of joining, i.e., from 28 October,
th
2010 to 27 October, 2013, or till a regular incumbent joined. The extension
was stated to have been granted pursuant to a decision taken by the
th
Governing Council in its meeting held on 8 June, 2012.
nd
11. The Petitioner’s engagement continued thereafter by order dated 22
st
October, 2014, up to 31 December, 2014. Around the same time, the
Petitioner instituted W.P.(C) 8000/2014 seeking, inter alia , reliefs
concerning the nature of her appointment and continuance in service.
12. In W.P.(C) 8000/2014, this Court granted interim protection to the
th nd
Petitioner on 19 November, 2014. Subsequently, on 22 November, 2014,
an order came to be issued terminating her services. The Petitioner thereafter
initiated contempt proceedings, being CONT.CAS(C) 871/2014. In those
proceedings, this Court stayed the operation of the termination order.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 4 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

13. Thereafter, during the pendency of W.P.(C) 8000/2014, the
th
Respondents placed before this Court an order dated 16 February, 2015,
issued by the Services Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, stating
that the services of contractual employees engaged in various departments
and organisations under the Government would not be terminated until
further instructions. Counsel appearing for the Respondents specifically
stated that the said policy would also apply to CBPACS and that the
Petitioner’s services would not be terminated till further instructions.
Recording the said statement, this Court disposed of W.P.(C) 8000/2014 on
th
13 October, 2015. While doing so, the Court directed that, in the event the
Respondents decided to terminate the Petitioner’s services, she would be
given at least two weeks’ advance notice before such termination was
effected.
th
14. On 11 June, 2016, CBPACS issued Advertisement No. 01/2016 for
various faculty posts, including one Unreserved post of Associate
Professor/Reader, Kriya Sharir, and one OBC (Delhi) post of Assistant
Professor/Lecturer, Kriya Sharir. The Petitioner applied only for the post of
Associate Professor/Reader. The Respondents state that she was given age
relaxation and weightage for contractual service; the Petitioner disputes the
need for age relaxation. It is, however, undisputed that she was not selected.
15. The Petitioner, however, continued in her existing contractual
engagement notwithstanding her non-selection in the 2016 recruitment
rd
process. On 23 March, 2018, an office order was issued extending her
st st
engagement from 1 April, 2018 to 31 October, 2018. Around the same
period, in response to an application under the Right to Information Act,
th
2005, information dated 27 April, 2018 was furnished regarding the faculty
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 5 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

position in the Department of Kriya Sharir. The information recorded five
faculty members working in the department and referred to Assistant
th th
Professors with dates of joining as 9 July, 2010, 28 October, 2010 and
th
26 October, 2016. It also referred to sanctioned posts in Kriya Sharir at
various levels, including Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant
Professor posts for undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Thereafter, the
nd
Petitioner submitted a representation dated 2 May, 2018 seeking
consideration against a vacant post of Associate Professor.
th
16. On 11 August, 2018, the impugned office order was issued. By the
said order, the Petitioner was informed that her contractual services as
Assistant Professor, Kriya Sharir, would stand discontinued upon expiry of
th
fifteen days. The order referred to the order dated 13 October, 2015 passed
in W.P.(C) 8000/2014, and stated that it was being issued in compliance
therewith, since the said order contemplated issuance of a notice.
17. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner instituted the present writ petition.
rd
On 23 August, 2018, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order
till the disposal of the writ petition.
18. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Petitioner filed CM
st
APPL. 57815/2024 seeking continuation of service. On 1 October, 2024,
counsel appearing for the Respondents, on instructions, stated that the
Petitioner’s contract would be renewed and that a formal office order would
be issued within one week. Recording the said statement, the Court disposed
of the application and observed that the Petitioner would continue to receive
all benefits admissible to her as a contractual employee.
st
19. Pursuant to the statement recorded on 1 October, 2024, an order of
st
the same date was issued extending the Petitioner’s engagement from 1
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 6 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

th
August, 2024 to 30 June, 2025. The order described the nature of
appointment/post as “ Contractual/Un-sanctioned ”.
Petitioner’s Contentions
20. Mr. Sriram Parakkat, counsel for the Petitioner, in support of the
petition, makes the following submissions:
20.1. The Petitioner entered service through a public recruitment process
th
initiated by Advertisement No. 16/2009 dated 9 September, 2009. She
applied for the post of Lecturer, Kriya Sharir, appeared in the screening test,
qualified therefor, and was called for interview. The offer of appointment
nd
dated 22 September, 2010 expressly records that it was issued “ on the
recommendation of the Selection Committee ”. The Petitioner cannot,
therefore, be characterised as a “ back-door ” entrant or as an appointee
engaged dehors a competitive selection process.
20.2. The description of the appointment as contractual in the offer cannot
be viewed in isolation from the surrounding circumstances. The
advertisement itself did not describe the post of Lecturer, Kriya Sharir as
contractual. The institution, thereafter, projected the Petitioner before the
CCIM as Lecturer, Kriya Sharir. Reliance is placed upon the communication
th
dated 6 October, 2010 addressed to the CCIM, wherein the Petitioner was
reflected as Lecturer, Kriya Sharir with “ acceptance received ”.
20.3. The contemporaneous record demonstrates that the Petitioner’s
engagement was throughout within the knowledge and approval of the
competent authority of CBPACS. Reliance is placed upon the proceedings
of the Governing Council and the successive extension orders issued from
time to time. The Governing Council itself approved her continuation and
recognised the salary arrangement linked to the sanctioned post of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 7 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

Lecturer/Reader in Kriya Sharir. If the institution failed to obtain sanction
for an additional post or to regularise its cadre structure, the consequences
thereof cannot be visited upon the Petitioner after she had rendered long and
uninterrupted service.
20.4. The Petitioner’s appointment was not merely the result of an
administrative arrangement but was treated by CBPACS itself as necessary
for compliance with the regulatory requirements governing commencement
and continuance of the Ayurvedic college. The Petitioner formed part of the
faculty strength relied upon by CBPACS for obtaining and maintaining
regulatory approvals.
20.5. Parity is claimed with the faculty members who obtained relief in
1
Amrish Chanana & Ors. v. GNCTD & Anr. and Arun Kumar v. GNCTD
2
& Anr. . Several faculty members who entered service through the same
recruitment process and under comparable circumstances were ultimately
treated as regular appointees. No intelligible basis exists for extending the
benefit of those decisions to other appointees emerging from the same
institutional recruitment process while continuing to treat the Petitioner
alone as a contractual employee.
20.6. The Respondents have themselves adopted inconsistent positions
regarding the status of the post occupied by the Petitioner. While at one
stage it was represented that her salary was being drawn against a sanctioned
post and that her services were required for the functioning of the institution,
the Respondents now contend that she was never appointed against a
sanctioned post. Such shifting stands cannot defeat the Petitioner’s claim

1
W.P.(C) 1045/2013.
2
W.P.(C) 1965/2013.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 8 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

after more than a decade of continuous service.
20.7. Insofar as the events of 2016 are concerned, the Petitioner participated
in the recruitment process for the post of Associate Professor/Reader, Kriya
Sharir. Although she was not selected, certain irregularities have
subsequently come to light in relation to that recruitment process. Reliance
is placed upon the enquiry record referred to in the written submissions to
contend that the process itself was subjected to adverse scrutiny. The fact
that the Petitioner was unsuccessful in that recruitment exercise cannot
extinguish her pre-existing claim arising out of the 2009 recruitment process
and her subsequent continuation in service.
th
20.8. The impugned office order dated 11 August, 2018 is arbitrary and
unsustainable in law. The order was issued when the Petitioner’s
st
engagement already stood extended up to 31 October, 2018. It assigns no
reason for the proposed discontinuance and merely purports to operate as a
notice. Compliance with a notice requirement cannot substitute a lawful
decision based upon relevant considerations, particularly where the action
has the effect of terminating a long-standing engagement.
3
20.9. Reliance is placed on Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
4
and Pawan Sharma & Ors. v. GNCTD & Ors. , among other decisions, to
advance three connected propositions. First, Secretary, State of Karnataka
5
& Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. cannot be read as permitting public
authorities to perpetuate contractual or temporary arrangements indefinitely
while continuing to utilise employees against perennial institutional
requirements. Secondly, where an employee has entered service through a

3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735.
4
2025 SCC OnLine Del 8313.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 9 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

recognised selection process and has continued for a prolonged period
because of the employer’s own administrative arrangements, the Court may
mould appropriate relief in the facts of the case. Thirdly, where the
employer’s failure to organise its cadre strength in accordance with law has
prejudiced such an employee, relief may include, where warranted, creation
of a supernumerary post or any other non-displacing measure consistent
with the constitutional discipline of public employment.
Respondents’ Contentions
21. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for GNCTD (Services), appearing on behalf
of the Respondents, opposes the present petition and contends as follows:
th
21.1. The advertisement dated 9 September, 2009 notified only one post of
Lecturer, Kriya Sharir. The Petitioner participated in that recruitment
process, but the Selection Committee selected Dr. Roushan. He was offered
th th
appointment on 6 June, 2010 and he joined on 9 July, 2010. Upon his
joining, the only advertised and sanctioned vacancy of Lecturer stood filled.
The Petitioner, who was not selected against that vacancy, could not claim
any right flowing from the 2009 advertisement thereafter.
21.2. The screening-test result establishes that the Petitioner had no
enforceable claim against the advertised vacancy. She secured 75 marks and
was placed at serial no. 6. The candidate at serial no. 1 secured 87 marks,
while the candidates placed above the Petitioner either obtained higher
marks or stood ahead of her in the selection sequence. On this basis, at the
highest, the Petitioner fell within the zone of consideration or in a waiting
th
list. Once Dr. Roushan joined the post on 9 July, 2010, that waiting list, if
any, stood exhausted and ceased to have any operative value.

5
(2006) 4 SCC 1.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 10 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

nd
21.3. The offer dated 22 September, 2010 cannot be treated as an
appointment against the vacancy advertised in 2009. By that date, the
notified vacancy had already been filled. The offer was issued later and was
expressly contractual in character: it was for an initial period of eleven
months, permitted either party to terminate the engagement by one month’s
notice or pay in lieu thereof, and clearly stated that the engagement would
not confer any right to regular appointment. The Petitioner accepted the
offer and continued in service on those terms.
21.4. The Petitioner’s appointment cannot even be treated as an irregular
appointment capable of being protected under the principles recognised in
service jurisprudence. No fresh advertisement was issued for appointment to
a contractual post of Lecturer, Kriya Sharir after Dr. Roushan joined service.
No separate recruitment process was conducted, and no sanctioned vacancy
existed against which such appointment could be made. The appointment is
therefore an illegal appointment made dehors the recruitment process and
outside the framework of the applicable rules.
th
21.5. Reliance is placed upon advertisements issued by CBPACS on 4
th
August, 2010 and 24 November, 2011 for various contractual positions.
Those advertisements demonstrate that whenever contractual appointments
were required, vacancies were publicly notified and candidates were
subjected to a selection process. No such advertisement was ever issued for
nd
a contractual post of Lecturer, Kriya Sharir. The appointment dated 22
September, 2010 is therefore an isolated appointment made without any
corresponding public process.
21.6. The subsequent references to the Petitioner in institutional records do
not alter the character of her appointment. Administrative references
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 11 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

describing the Petitioner as Lecturer, Kriya Sharir, or the utilisation of her
services by CBPACS, cannot create a sanctioned post or convert a
contractual engagement into a regular appointment. The Governing Council
record itself indicates that the post occupied by the Petitioner had “ not yet
been sanctioned ”. Permission to draw salary from an available budgetary
head or against another sanctioned post is an internal administrative
arrangement incapable of creating any substantive right.
21.7. The Petitioner’s reliance on Amrish Chanana and Arun Kumar is
misplaced. Those decisions concerned faculty members who had been
appointed against sanctioned posts pursuant to a valid recruitment process.
The present case stands on a different footing. The sole sanctioned post
advertised in 2009 had already been filled by Dr. Roushan, and the
Petitioner was thereafter engaged contractually without any separate
advertisement or selection process.
21.8. The earlier petition filed by the Petitioner, being W.P.(C) 8000/2014,
did not result in any declaration that she had been regularly appointed or that
she possessed any right to regularisation. The petition was disposed of on
th
13 October, 2015 based on the statement made with reference to the
governing policy concerning contractual employees. The Court neither
adjudicated upon the merits of the Petitioner’s claim nor restrained the
Respondents from discontinuing her services indefinitely. It merely directed
that, if a decision was taken to terminate her services, at least two weeks’
notice should be given before such termination. The impugned order dated
th
11 August, 2018 was issued in compliance therewith.
21.9. The Petitioner also participated in the recruitment process initiated
through Advertisement No. 01/2016. The Petitioner applied for the post of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 12 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

Associate Professor/Reader, under the Unreserved category, but was not
selected. The Petitioner was granted age relaxation as well as weightage for
the period spent in contractual service yet failed to secure selection. Having
been unsuccessful in a regular recruitment process, she cannot obtain the
same result through writ proceedings.
21.10. The appointments made pursuant to the 2016 recruitment process
cannot be unsettled in the present proceedings. Candidates selected through
the prescribed recruitment process have entered service against the notified
posts. The Petitioner cannot be accommodated by displacing any such
incumbent or by granting precedence over candidates selected in accordance
with the applicable rules. Any such direction would prejudice persons who
are not parties to the present proceedings.
rd
21.11. The Petitioner has continued in service after 23 August, 2018 solely
by virtue of the interim protection granted by this Court. Such continuation
cannot create any substantive right, nor can the passage of time during the
pendency of the proceedings be relied upon to claim regularisation.
st
21.12. The order dated 1 October, 2024 extending the Petitioner’s
st th
engagement from 1 August, 2024 to 30 June, 2025 does not advance her
case. The extension was granted in the backdrop of the pending writ petition
and the subsisting interim orders passed by this Court. The order itself
describes the nature of the appointment/post as “ Contractual/Un-
sanctioned ”. The extension cannot, therefore, be treated as an admission of
any regular right, sanctioned post, or entitlement to absorption.
21.13. An objection is also raised to the relief seeking creation of a post.
Such creation falls within the executive domain and cannot ordinarily be
issued in writ proceedings. The decision to create a post depends upon
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 13 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

multiple institutional considerations, including sanctioned strength, statutory
requirements, cadre structure and administrative necessity.
21.14. Reliance is placed upon the decisions in Umadevi , State of
6
Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors. , Sunil Kumar Yadav & Ors. v.
7
State of Jharkhand & Ors. and Sh. Ankur Garg v. Delhi Technological
8
University . On the strength of these authorities, it is contended that
regularisation is impermissible where the initial appointment was not made
against a sanctioned post or through a constitutionally compliant recruitment
process. The length of service, institutional necessity, or continuation under
interim orders cannot cure an appointment that was illegal at its inception.
Issues for Consideration
22. On the basis of the pleadings and rival submissions, the following
issues arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the Petitioner’s engagement pursuant to the offer of
nd
appointment dated 22 September, 2010 constituted an illegal appointment
dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment, as contended by the
Respondents, or an irregular but legally cognisable engagement traceable to
the recruitment process initiated by Advertisement No. 16/2009, as
contended by the Petitioner.
(ii) Whether the Petitioner can claim any right to regular appointment
th
against the post of Lecturer, Kriya Sharir advertised on 9 September, 2009,
after the appointment of Dr. Roushan against the said post.
(iii) What is the legal effect, if any, of the Petitioner’s participation and
non-selection in the recruitment process initiated by Advertisement No.

6
(2010) 9 SCC 247.
7
SLP (C) No. 4881/2023.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 14 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

01/2016, and whether any relief in the present petition can trench upon that
recruitment process or the appointments made pursuant thereto.
th
(iv) Whether the impugned order dated 11 August, 2018, discontinuing
the Petitioner’s engagement is sustainable in law.
(v) Whether the Petitioner’s continuation in service under the interim
orders passed in the present proceedings has any bearing upon her
entitlement to substantive relief.
(vi) If the impugned action is found to be unsustainable, what relief, if
any, can be granted having regard to the scope of Articles 14 and 16, the
rights of regularly appointed faculty members, and the limits of judicial
review in matters concerning creation of posts and regularisation.
Discussion & Reasons
Scope of the Controversy and Limits of the Present Adjudication
23. The threshold enquiry is straightforward. If the Petitioner’s
engagement was “ illegal ” in the Umadevi sense, equity cannot cure it: long
service, institutional need or hardship cannot validate a constitutionally
impermissible entry. But if she was qualified, entered through a public
process, was considered by the Selection Committee, and was then used by
CBPACS for a regular teaching function, the Court must examine whether
the defect lay in the employer’s failure to lawfully structure and sanction its
teaching establishment, and whether relief can be moulded without
infringing Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
24. Three events must be kept distinct. First, the recruitment process
initiated by Advertisement No. 16/2009. Secondly, the Petitioner’s offer of
nd
appointment dated 22 September, 2010. Thirdly, the recruitment process

8
W.P.(C) 19665/2025.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 15 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

initiated in 2016. Each carries its own legal consequence. If merged, the
narrative either wrongly suggests that the Petitioner was regularly appointed
against the 2009 vacancy or wrongly portrays her as wholly outside any
public recruitment process. Neither characterisation is accurate.
25. The first of these events is the recruitment process initiated by
Advertisement No. 16/2009. The advertisement notified one post of
Lecturer, Kriya Sharir. According to the Respondents, that post was filled
th
when Dr. Roushan joined service on 9 July, 2010. The appointment of Dr.
Roushan is not under challenge in these proceedings. The Petitioner’s claim
must, therefore, be examined without treating that vacancy as subsisting or
adjudicating upon Dr. Roushan’s service rights.
26. That conclusion, however, does not dispose of the Petitioner’s case.
Although she cannot claim appointment against the sole vacancy advertised
in 2009, her later engagement cannot be viewed as wholly detached from
that recruitment process. She had applied pursuant to Advertisement No.
16/2009, appeared in the screening test, qualified for interview and was
nd
considered by the Selection Committee. The offer dated 22 September,
2010, which refers to the recommendation of the Selection Committee, must
therefore be examined in that limited but material context.
nd
27. The second event concerns the offer of appointment dated 22
September, 2010. It records that the offer was made “ on the
recommendation of the Selection Committee ”. At the same time, it describes
the engagement as contractual, fixes the initial tenure at eleven months,
provides for termination by notice or salary in lieu of notice, and states that
the engagement would not confer any right to regular appointment. These
stipulations cannot be ignored. They limit the nature of the relief that may
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 16 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

ultimately be granted. Their presence, however, does not by itself conclude
the character of the engagement.
28. The character of an appointment is not always exhausted by the label
employed in the appointment letter. In Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of
9
India & Ors. , the Supreme Court observed that the essence of employment
and the rights flowing therefrom cannot be determined merely by the initial
terms of appointment where the actual course of employment has evolved
significantly over time. The Court further observed that the employees’
continuous discharge of duties akin to those of regular employees, coupled
with their selection through a process substantially resembling regular
recruitment, distinguished their case from the “ back-door ” or “ illegal ”
10
appointments considered in Umadevi . In Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors. ,
the Supreme Court likewise emphasized that long and uninterrupted service
cannot be brushed aside merely by describing the initial engagement as
“ part-time ” or “ contractual ”. The Court emphasised that the true character
of the engagement must be assessed in the light of the employee’s sustained
contribution, the integral and perennial nature of the work performed, and
the absence of any “ illegal ” or “ surreptitious ” entry.
29. Umadevi , therefore, does not require the Court to disregard either the
manner in which an employee entered service or the employer’s own
subsequent conduct. M.L. Kesari reiterates the distinction recognised in
Umadevi between “ illegal ” and “ irregular ” appointments. Whether the
present case falls within either category cannot be determined by isolating a
single clause of the appointment letter from the surrounding record. Here,

9
(2024) 9 SCC 327.
10
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 17 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

nd
although the offer letter dated 22 September, 2010 describes the
engagement as contractual, it also records that it was issued “ on the
recommendation of the Selection Committee ”. The character of the
engagement must therefore be assessed on the whole record, rather than by
treating the contractual stipulation as conclusive.
30. The third event is the recruitment process initiated through
Advertisement No. 01/2016. The advertisement notified one post of
Associate Professor/Reader, Kriya Sharir under the Unreserved category and
one post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer, Kriya Sharir under the OBC
(Delhi) category. The Petitioner participated in the selection process for the
post of Associate Professor/Reader but was unsuccessful. That
circumstance, however, does not conclude the present controversy. The
legality of the 2016 recruitment process, the Petitioner’s challenge thereto,
and the appointments made pursuant thereto must be examined in the
proceedings where those issues directly arise. For the purposes of the
present writ petition, the 2016 recruitment has only a limited bearing. It
demonstrates that the Petitioner cannot claim appointment against the post
of Associate Professor/Reader in these proceedings and that any relief
granted herein must not disturb appointments made pursuant to the 2016
recruitment process.
31. The enquiry is therefore narrower than the reliefs claimed. This Court
is not reopening the 2009 recruitment process, nor examining the validity of
the 2016 recruitment. The question is confined to whether the Petitioner’s
nd
engagement under the offer dated 22 September, 2010, though contractual
in form and not against the 2009 advertised vacancy, bore sufficient nexus
with the earlier public recruitment process, the regulatory record, the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 18 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

institutional decisions and the continuing teaching requirement to prevent
the Respondents from treating her as a mere contractual employee
removable by bare notice.
32. This also answers the Respondents’ submission that the Petitioner’s
continuation rests only upon interim orders passed by this Court.
Continuation under interim protection cannot, by itself, create a right to
regularisation. The Petitioner’s claim, however, does not arise merely from
rd
the period subsequent to 23 August, 2018. By the time the impugned order
came to be stayed, she had already served CBPACS for nearly eight years.
The legality of the impugned action must therefore be assessed based on the
institutional record as it existed prior to the grant of interim protection.
Legal Framework governing Regularisation and Public Employment
33. With the aforesaid limits in mind, it is appropriate to examine the
legal principles governing the issue. The starting point remains Umadevi .
Public employment must ordinarily rest upon sanctioned posts, prescribed
qualifications, open competition and selection by the competent authority. A
court cannot invoke equitable considerations to create a parallel route into
public service, nor can long continuance, by itself, cure an appointment
made in derogation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The principle
protects not only the public employer but equally those eligible candidates
who await a fair opportunity to compete.
34. However, Umadevi does not place every defective appointment
beyond correction. Service jurisprudence recognises a distinction between
an “ illegal ” appointment and an “ irregular ” appointment. Not every
departure from the prescribed procedure necessarily stands on the same
footing. Whether an appointment is so fundamentally defective as to be
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 19 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

treated as illegal, or whether it suffers from curable procedural irregularities,
depends upon the nature of the departure viewed in the context of the
governing recruitment framework.
35. It is settled that regularisation cannot be directed in disregard of the
governing recruitment rules, the sanctioned strength, or the rights of eligible
candidates awaiting consideration. Those principles undoubtedly apply in
the present case. Their application, however, depends upon the true
character of the Petitioner’s engagement as disclosed by the entire
recruitment record. In that context, it is material that the advertisement dated
th
9 September, 2009 did not describe the post of Lecturer, Kriya Sharir as
contractual, though it separately contemplated contractual appointments of
retired Government servants if suitable candidates were unavailable. The
significance of the contractual stipulation contained in the Petitioner’s offer
of appointment must, therefore, be assessed in the context of the recruitment
process as a whole and the subsequent institutional record. There is no
explanation forthcoming from the Respondents as to why, notwithstanding
the aforenoted advertisement, the Petitioner’s appointment was described as
contractual.
36. On the present record, the Petitioner’s case falls between the two clear
categories. It is not a case of regular appointment against a sanctioned and
nd
advertised vacancy. By the time the offer dated 22 September, 2010 was
issued, the vacancy advertised in 2009 had already been filled upon the
appointment of Dr. Roushan. Further, no fresh advertisement preceded the
Petitioner’s contractual engagement. These facts preclude the Court from
holding that the Petitioner stood regularly appointed from the date of joining
or from placing her on the same footing as a candidate selected against a
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 20 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

sanctioned advertised post.
37. Equally, the record does not permit the Court to treat the Petitioner as
a private or patronage appointee. Her engagement remained traceable to
nd
Advertisement No. 16/2009. The offer dated 22 September, 2010 expressly
referred to the recommendation of the Selection Committee. CBPACS then
represented to the CCIM that, in Kriya Sharir, “ Lecturer: Dr. Smita Arora -
Acceptance received ”. The Governing Council later recorded her
continuance while noting that the post had “ not yet been sanctioned ”. She
thereafter discharged the same teaching function for years. These facts place
the case outside the category of a “ back-door ” appointment.
38. The Petitioner neither created the sanctioned strength of the institution
nor concealed her status or misrepresented her qualifications. CBPACS
selected from a pool generated through its own public recruitment process,
utilised her services for a regular academic function, relied upon her
presence while addressing regulatory requirements, and continued the
arrangement over successive years. If the institution required a teacher in the
Department of Kriya Sharir on a continuing basis, it was for CBPACS and
the Government to have the post sanctioned. Nonetheless, they continued to
extend the Petitioner’s contractual engagement on multiple occasions
without the post being sanctioned.
Consideration of the Precedents relied upon by the Parties
39. The Respondents first rely upon Ankur Garg . That decision turned
upon a materially different route of entry into service. The employee in that
case had not entered service pursuant to any public advertisement inviting
applications from eligible candidates or through any open selection process.
His engagement traced back to an individual application addressed to the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 21 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

Vice-Chancellor, followed by its internal processing as a contractual
arrangement. This Court held that such an engagement could not be
regularised merely because the employee had continued in service for a long
period. The principle is unexceptionable. It does not, however, govern a case
where the employee entered the field of consideration through a public
advertisement, underwent screening and interview, and was thereafter
appointed with reference to the Selection Committee’s recommendation.
40. The Respondents also rely upon Sunil Kumar Yadav . In that case, the
Supreme Court held that the claim for regularisation could not be granted as
it would amount to direct absorption into a State cadre post by bypassing the
statutory recruitment framework and thereby create a “ new mode of
recruitment not sanctioned by law ”. The present case, however, does not
concern a claim for direct absorption into a different cadre by bypassing a
separate statutory source of recruitment. It concerns the Petitioner’s
engagement in the same institution, the same department and the same
teaching function.
41. The Petitioner, on the other hand, places considerable reliance upon
the decision of this Court in Amrish Chanana . That decision arose out of
appointments made to teaching posts in the very same institution. After
examining the principles flowing from Umadevi , the Court first found that
the appointments under consideration had been made against sanctioned
posts, vacancies existed, the appointees possessed the prescribed
qualifications, and recruitment had been undertaken through a public
advertisement followed by an open process of selection. It was in that
factual backdrop that the Court held that the appointments could not be
treated as mere contractual engagements merely because of the language
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 22 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

employed in the appointment letters.
42. The subsequent decision in Arun Kumar only adopted the ratio of
Amrish Chanana after recording that the Petitioner therein had likewise
been appointed against a sanctioned post through a regular recruitment
process pursuant to a public advertisement, and that the appointment letter
was materially the same as the one considered in Amrish Chanana . On that
basis, the Court extended the same relief.
43. The Petitioner’s reliance on Dharam Singh raises a distinct, though
related, aspect of the law. That decision does not dilute the constitutional
discipline laid down in Umadevi . It recognises that where the State itself
acknowledges a continuing institutional requirement, continues to utilise the
same workforce over a prolonged period, and yet fails to place that
requirement on a lawful sanctioned footing, the controversy may not be
reducible to a simple plea for regularisation. Creation of posts ordinarily lies
within the executive domain; yet a refusal to address an admitted and
continuing need is not immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. The
recent decision in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee & Ors. v. State of Assam &
11
Ors. reiterates that Umadevi is not a “ blanket barrier ” and cautions against
a rigid application of its principles divorced from the facts of the case, which
would defeat the very principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness. It also
recognises that, where the facts so warrant, relief may be moulded in a
manner that does not prejudice regularly appointed employees, including, if
necessary, by creation of supernumerary posts. Thus, any relief in the
peculiar facts of the present case must, nevertheless, remain exceptional and
carefully confined so as not to disturb an existing recruitment process or
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 23 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

become a general route around Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
44. Pawan Sharma reflects a similar calibrated approach. The Division
Bench of this Court examined whether the employees’ engagement, though
described as contractual, was preceded by a process substantially resembling
regular recruitment, whether they possessed the prescribed qualifications,
were appointed against sanctioned posts, discharged essential and perennial
functions, and had rendered long, uninterrupted and blemish-free service. It
concluded that the contractual description of the engagement could not, by
itself, defeat the substantive character of the employment or the employees’
claim to relief. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the direction
12
for regularisation was not interfered with . It was, however, clarified that
the relief would not disturb the inter se seniority of persons who had entered
service through regular recruitment in the intervening period, and directed
that the petitioners therein be placed below such regularly appointed
employees.
45. Applying these principles, the Petitioner cannot be branded a “ back-
door ”, patronage or wholly private appointee. Her engagement was traceable
nd
to Advertisement No. 16/2009; the offer dated 22 September, 2010
referred to the Selection Committee’s recommendation; CBPACS projected
her to the CCIM as Lecturer, Kriya Sharir; and the Governing Council
recorded both her continuance and the fact that sanction for the post was
pending. The contractual label therefore does not erase the institutional
reality: CBPACS treated her as part of its teaching faculty and used her for a
continuing academic function.

11
Civil Appeal No. 4514/2025 & other connected matters.
12
GNCTD & Anr. v. Pawan Sharma & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7837/2026, SLP (C) No. 17750/2026.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 24 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

th
Validity of the Impugned Order dated 11 August, 2018
46. The conclusion reached above is reinforced by the manner in which
rd
the impugned office order came to be issued. By order dated 23 March,
st
2018, the Petitioner’s engagement had already been extended up to 31
th
October, 2018. The impugned order dated 11 August, 2018 nevertheless
sought to discontinue her services upon expiry of fifteen days, thereby
bringing the engagement to an end before the extended term had expired.
The Respondents’ own application for vacation of the interim order [C.M.
No. 15737/2025] also proceeds on the footing that the Petitioner’s
engagement had been extended, even though it elsewhere states that the
st
contract had expired on 31 March, 2018.
47. The impugned order also assigns no reason for the discontinuance. It
th
merely refers to the order dated 13 October, 2015 passed in W.P.(C)
8000/2014 and assumes that issuance of notice was sufficient compliance.
That assumption is misplaced. The earlier order recorded the Respondents’
statement that the Services Department policy concerning contractual
employees would apply to the Petitioner and that her services would not be
terminated till further instructions. The requirement of two weeks’ advance
notice was only a procedural safeguard. It did not dispense with the need for
a lawful, fair and reasoned decision based on relevant considerations.
48. A public employer may discontinue a contractual engagement in
accordance with law. But when an employee has served for years in the
same department, was protected earlier on the basis of a Government policy
and was treated in the institution’s own record as faculty relied upon for
regulatory purposes, a bare notice without reasons is not fair administrative
action. The Respondents were required to consider those circumstances
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 25 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

before deciding to discontinue the Petitioner’s engagement.
49. The Respondents’ submission that CBPACS was effectively paying
two salaries against one sanctioned post also cannot conclude the matter.
The Court is not directing appointment against an existing post on that basis.
The point is narrower: if CBPACS required the Petitioner’s services for a
continuing academic function, and if Kriya Sharir remained a recurring
teaching discipline within the institution, any mismatch between sanctioned
strength and actual academic need had to be addressed by CBPACS and the
Government in accordance with law. That mismatch could not, by itself,
justify a bare, unreasoned discontinuance of an employee whose services the
institution had consistently utilised.
Conclusion
th
50. The impugned office order dated 11 August, 2018 therefore cannot
stand. It treated the Petitioner as a terminable contractual appointee without
engaging with the material circumstances that made her case exceptional:
her entry through a public recruitment process, the appointment letter’s
reference to the Selection Committee’s recommendation, CBPACS’ own
regulatory reliance on her as teaching faculty, and her long service in the
same discipline without displacing any regularly selected incumbent.
51. A remand for fresh consideration would, in the peculiar facts of the
present case, be an inadequate remedy. At the same time, the constitutional
limits are clear: the Petitioner can neither be regularised by fitting her into
the 2009 or 2016 vacancies, nor can she be placed above regularly recruited
faculty. The subsequent evolution of the sanctioned cadre cannot be
permitted to defeat the limited relief to which the Petitioner is otherwise
found entitled. Equally, the Court cannot direct her absorption against an
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 26 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

existing sanctioned post to the prejudice of regularly appointed faculty. The
appropriate course, therefore, is to direct her prospective absorption against
a personal supernumerary post, which gives effect to the institutional
obligation recognised above while preserving the existing cadre, recruitment
process and inter se seniority of regularly appointed employees.
Relief
52. The writ petition is partly allowed in the following terms:
MPUGNED ORDER AND SCOPE OF DECLARATION
A. I
th
(i) The office order dated 11 August, 2018 discontinuing the Petitioner’s
contractual services is quashed.
(ii) The Petitioner shall not be treated as regularly appointed against the
post of Lecturer, Kriya Sharir filled by Dr. Roushan pursuant to the
th
advertisement dated 9 September, 2009.
(iii) The Petitioner shall not claim appointment, seniority or consequential
benefits against the post of Associate Professor/Reader, Kriya Sharir
advertised under Advertisement No. 01/2016 on the strength of this order.
Any proceedings concerning that recruitment shall be decided
independently.
B. C REATION OF PERSONAL SUPERNUMERARY POST AND ABSORPTION
(iv) The Government of NCT of Delhi, CBPACS and the Governing
Council of CBPACS shall, within eight weeks from the date of this order,
create a personal supernumerary post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer, Kriya
Sharir, or its equivalent nomenclature, for the Petitioner.
(v) Upon creation of that post, the Petitioner shall be absorbed against it
prospectively from the date of this order.
(vi) The post shall remain personal to the Petitioner and shall lapse upon
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 27 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59

her retirement, resignation, absorption against a regular sanctioned vacancy
in accordance with law, or cessation of service for any other lawful reason.
(vii) The Respondents shall issue the consequential order of absorption
within two weeks of the creation of the personal supernumerary post.
C. S ENIORITY , PAST SERVICE AND MONETARY CONSEQUENCES
(viii) The Petitioner shall not claim seniority over Dr. Roushan or any other
faculty member regularly appointed before the date of this order. She shall
be placed below all such regularly appointed faculty members in the relevant
discipline/department/cadre.
th
(ix) The Petitioner’s past service from 28 October, 2010 shall count only
for teaching experience and continuity of institutional service. It shall not
confer retrospective seniority or retrospective regularisation.
(x) From the date of absorption, the Petitioner shall receive the pay,
allowances and service benefits attached to the post of Assistant
Professor/Lecturer, Kriya Sharir, or its equivalent nomenclature, in
accordance with the applicable rules. While fixing pay, the Respondents
shall protect the pay and emoluments actually drawn by her immediately
before absorption. Any approval required for such protection shall be
processed and decided within the period specified above.
53. In the above terms, the present writ petition and all pending
applications stand disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 01, 2026/ab
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8817/2018 Page 28 of 28

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:01.07.2026
17:14:59