A university cannot deny regularization to long-serving contractual employees while regularizing similarly placed staff.

The petitioners worked on contract at Doranda College, a constituent college of Ranchi University: Petitioner No. 1 from 2015, later as Assistant Librarian, and Petitioner No. 2 from 2013, later as Computer Operator.

The college submitted their names to the University in lists of contractual employees proposed for regularization.

The University had regularized other Grade III and Grade IV employees in 2021.

Petitioner No. 1 also sought unpaid remuneration for July 2015 to April 2018.

The University and college opposed the petition; the college disputed Petitioner No. 1’s appointment letter, but the University’s counter-affidavit included a college-endorsed list recording both petitioners’ joining dates.

The petitioners sought regularization and payment of the outstanding remuneration.

Whether the petitioners, having served continuously in essential college functions for many years, were entitled to regularization as Assistant Librarian and Computer Operator

Whether Petitioner No. 1 was entitled to remuneration for July 2015 to April 2018

The Court relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, distinguishing illegal appointments from irregular appointments and noting that Umadevi does not operate as a blanket bar to regularization of employees who have served continuously in essential functions.

It applied the principles in Jaggo v. Union of India and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam, including that long, unblemished service in perennial and essential work, and the State’s obligation to act fairly as a model employer, are relevant to regularization; prolonged contractual engagement cannot be justified merely by the label attached to the appointment.

The Court also considered Article 14 principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness, particularly in light of the University’s regularization of similarly placed Grade III and Grade IV employees.

The University Statutes, UGC Regulations dated 18 July 2018, and State Letter No. 719 dated 25 June 2021 were cited as indicating sanctioned Librarian and Assistant Librarian posts.

The Court found that the petitioners had performed continuous, unblemished work essential to the college’s functioning: library services and computer-based administrative work.

The college’s own communications recorded the petitioners’ service and joining dates, undermining its challenge to Petitioner No. 1’s appointment and supporting the petitioners’ claims.

The Court also relied on the evidence of sanctioned library posts and the University’s prior regularization of other Grade III and Grade IV employees.

In those circumstances, maintaining the petitioners on contract while denying them equivalent treatment was exploitative and discriminatory.

It directed Respondents 1–4 to regularize Petitioner No. 1 as Assistant Librarian and Petitioner No. 2 as Computer Operator at Doranda College, with consequential benefits, within six weeks.

It further directed payment to Petitioner No. 1 of remuneration due for July 2015 to April 2018, after adjusting any payments already made, within four weeks.