Challenge to fixed-term contractual appointments becomes infructuous upon expiry of the specified contract period.

The petitioner served as a contractual Teaching Personnel at G.B. Pant University from 2011 to 2015, after which his contract was not renewed.

Pursuant to a 2021 advertisement for similar contractual positions, the petitioner applied but was declared ineligible by the Selection Committee due to pending litigation against the University and allegedly providing false information.

Respondents No. 4 and 5 were subsequently appointed for one semester during the 2021-22 academic year.

The petitioner challenged the selection process and later filed an amendment application (IA/9/2026) seeking regularization of his services and a claim for continuous employment since 2016.

1. Whether the writ petition challenging the appointment of private respondents remains maintainable after the expiry of their contractual term.

2. Whether the petitioner can amend the writ petition to seek regularization after being out of employment for over ten years.

The court applied the principle of "infructuous litigation," which holds that when the subject matter of a dispute (in this case, a specific contractual appointment term) has expired by efflux of time, the court need not adjudicate upon the merits.

Regarding the amendment of pleadings, the court applied the principle that an amendment that fundamentally alters the "complexion" or nature of the original writ petition, or introduces stale claims after an inordinate delay (laches), should not be permitted.

The court observed that the appointments of Respondents No. 4 and 5 were for the 2021-22 academic session and had concluded long ago; thus, even if the petitioner had been successful, his term would have already expired.

Consequently, the primary challenge to the selection process became a matter of academic interest only.

Regarding the amendment application, the court noted that the petitioner had been out of service for over ten years, making a claim for regularization legally untenable.

The court reasoned that shifting the focus from a specific selection challenge to a general claim for regularization would fundamentally change the nature of the petition, which is impermissible at a belated stage.

It held that since the term of the challenged appointments had ended years prior, no relief could be granted and the issues raised were purely academic.

The court further held that a claim for regularization cannot be entertained when the individual has been out of employment for a decade.

Proceeding dismissed without relief.