Acceptance of Contractual Appointment Where Advertisement Permitted Both Regular and Contractual Modes Precludes Claim for Regularization

The Appellant applied for the post of Security Inspector pursuant to an advertisement dated March 3, 2022, which invited applications for various non-teaching posts on a "regular/deputation/contractual basis"

The Appellant filled out a form specifically titled "Application Form for Non-Academic Positions (Contractual Basis)"

Following a selection process, the Appellant was placed at serial no. 1 in the waiting list and was subsequently offered appointment purely on a contractual basis for one year via an offer letter dated March 16, 2023

He accepted these terms without objection

After his engagement was extended periodically, the University issued an office order on April 1, 2026, stating that his contract would not be renewed beyond April 19, 2026, due to administrative requirements

The Appellant challenged this and the refusal of his regularization request in a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on April 10, 2026

1. Whether an appointment made through a selection process applicable to regular posts can be treated as a regular appointment despite the advertisement and offer letter specifying the engagement as contractual.

2. Whether the non-renewal of a short-term contractual engagement (less than three years) constitutes arbitrary state action or violates the principles of legitimate expectation under Article 14.

The court primarily applied the principles of contractual employment and Article 14 of the Constitution of India regarding fairness in state action

It distinguished the precedent in Somesh Thapliyal v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University (2021), which establishes that if an advertisement is for "regular" posts only, the employer cannot unilaterally impose contractual terms post-selection

It further distinguished Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026), which holds that the state cannot rely on "contractual labels" to abruptly terminate or deny regularization to employees who have served for over a decade against sanctioned posts

The Court found that unlike the precedent in Somesh Thapliyal, the respondent University’s advertisement explicitly stated that appointments could be regular, on deputation, or contractual

Crucially, the Appellant had applied using a form specifically designated for "Contractual Basis" and accepted the appointment letter's terms—which barred claims for seniority or regularization—without demur

The Court reasoned that the University exercised its discretion based on administrative needs as notified from the outset

Regarding the claim for regularization under Bhola Nath, the Court noted that the Appellant had served for less than three years, whereas the Bhola Nath protections apply to long-standing engagements of ten years or more

The Court held that the University provided a valid administrative reason (review of security requirements) for the non-renewal, making the action a simpliciter termination of a time-bound contract rather than an arbitrary or stigmatic dismissal

The Court further held that the non-extension of the contract was a valid administrative decision and did not violate constitutional protections given the short duration of service and the lack of any stigmatic reasoning in the termination order

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge's order