Contractual employees lack a legal right to regularization in non-sanctioned posts or without meeting mandatory qualifications.

The Petitioner was appointed as an Executive Officer (Legal) at IIT Bombay on a purely contractual and temporary basis following an advertisement dated July 8, 2015

His initial three-year contract was renewed periodically via office orders until the final extension, which stipulated a tenure from April 24, 2025, to April 23, 2026

On March 13, 2026, the Respondents issued a communication stating his tenure would expire on April 23, 2026, and no further extensions would be granted

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash this communication and praying for regularization in the post of Executive Officer (Legal) or Deputy Registrar (Legal), claiming nearly ten years of unblemished service

1. Whether a contractual employee appointed to a non-sanctioned, temporary post has a legal right to claim regularization or permanency upon the expiry of the contract term

2. Whether the court can direct regularization to a higher permanent post (Deputy Registrar) when the candidate lacks the prescribed minimum educational and experience qualifications

The court primarily relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, which established that temporary or contractual employees cannot claim permanency upon the expiry of their term, especially if the initial appointment was not against a sanctioned post

It followed State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, which distinguished "irregular" appointments (qualified persons in sanctioned posts) from "illegal" appointments (unqualified persons or non-sanctioned posts)

The court also applied Statutes 12, 13, and 15 of the IIT Bombay Statutes, which differentiate between permanent and contractual staff

The principle from Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen that courts cannot grant relief not specifically prayed for

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s post was explicitly advertised as temporary and non-sanctioned

Under the IIT Statutes, contractual appointments are distinct from regular cadre, and the Petitioner accepted these terms through successive renewals

Regarding the claim for regularization as a Deputy Registrar (Legal), the Court found the Petitioner unqualified; he possessed only 50.05% in his LL.M., whereas the post required 55%, and he lacked the mandatory 5-year experience at Level 10

Applying the Umadevi criteria, the Court held that since the Petitioner was neither working in a sanctioned post nor met the qualifying criteria for the permanent posts, his plea for regularization was "illegal" rather than "irregular"

Furthermore, the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation was ruled inapplicable as there was no statutory promise of permanency

The Court also noted the Petitioner’s non-disclosure of his selection for another government undertaking, suggesting the writ was a speculative attempt

The Impugned Communication was upheld as a valid expiration of contract by efflux of time

The Court granted a limited extension until June 8, 2026, for the Petitioner to vacate his official residence