### Direct Individual Request for Employment Without Public Advertisement Constitutes Illegal Entry Precluding Regularization Claim

The Petitioner was engaged by Delhi Technological University ("University") as a Junior Office Assistant via an appointment memorandum dated May 26, 2014.

The engagement was expressly contractual and temporary, though it was extended through successive office orders for over eleven years.

In November 2025, the University issued Advertisement No. 03/2025 to fill several posts, including the Petitioner’s position, through regular recruitment.

The Petitioner’s representation for regularization was rejected on December 19, 2025.

Unlike the petitioners in a companion case (*Mohd. Ansari & Ors. v. DTU*), the Petitioner here did not enter service through a public advertisement but via an individual application addressed to the Vice Chancellor.

Whether a long-standing contractual engagement initiated without a public advertisement can be regularized based on the length of service.

Whether the University can be restrained from proceeding with a fresh recruitment process for a post currently occupied by a contractual employee.

The court applied the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16, which require public posts to be filled through open, fair, and competitive processes.

It relied on the Constitution Bench decision in *Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)*, which prohibits regularization as a "back-door entry" into public service.

The court further distinguished between "irregular" appointments (procedurally flawed but public-facing) and "illegal" appointments (opaque and non-competitive) as clarified in *State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari* and *State of Jammu and Kashmir v. District Bar Association, Bandipora*.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner’s route of entry was fundamentally different from cases where regularization is permissible.

While "irregular" appointments might be considered for regularization if they follow a broadly transparent process, the Petitioner’s entry was "illegal" because it bypassed the constitutional requirement of public notice and competition.

The court noted that the Petitioner’s engagement stemmed from a private request to the Vice Chancellor rather than a public-facing recruitment drive.

Consequently, the length of service (11 years) and the nature of duties performed could not "metamorphose" an unconstitutional entry into a lawful appointment.

Regarding the challenge to the new recruitment advertisement, the court held that the University is constitutionally obligated under Articles 14 and 16 to fill regular posts through public selection, and a contractual employee has no vested right to stall this process.

It held that regularization cannot be granted where the initial appointment was made *de hors* the constitutional scheme of public employment.

The Court specifically declined to quash Advertisement No. 03/2025, affirming the University’s right and duty to conduct a regular recruitment process open to all eligible candidates.