Contractual extension periods must be equal absent a justified distinction between similarly situated employees.

The petitioner had worked as an Assistant Registrar on a contractual basis since 2019, with her tenure extended from time to time

A proposal dated 22 June 2026 recommended an 11-month extension, but she was granted an extension of only three months

She relied on documents showing that other contractual or temporary personnel had received extensions ranging from six months to one year, and sought an 11-month extension on grounds of parity

The respondents opposed the claim, contending that the petitioner had no enforceable right to continued contractual engagement and had not been appointed against a sanctioned post

At the hearing, the petitioner pressed only the relief seeking continuation for 11 months

The Court applied the principle that similarly situated contractual personnel should not be treated differently without a satisfactory justification, consistent with the requirement of non-arbitrary decision-making

No statute, regulation, or judicial precedent was cited as the basis for the decision.

The respondents’ arguments that the petitioner had no vested right to continuation and could not claim equality based on an illegality were recorded, but the Court did not identify or apply any cited authority on those propositions

The Court noted that the petitioner had served on a contractual basis since 2019, that an 11-month extension had been proposed, and that other personnel had received longer extensions

Although the respondents maintained that the petitioner had no right to continued engagement, they did not satisfactorily explain why she was treated differently or identify a specific distinction justifying the shorter extension

In those circumstances, the Court accepted the parity claim and ordered an 11-month extension

The petitioner was left at liberty to pursue the other reliefs originally sought through the appropriate authority or other available remedy