Part-time teachers have no enforceable right to regularization as lecturers or lab assistants.

The respondents had filed WPS No. 735 of 2020 seeking appointment as Lecturers or, alternatively, as Lab Assistants.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 30 March 2022 and remitted the matter to the State Government for fresh consideration of their claim.

The State preferred the present writ appeal with a delay of 1,090 days and filed an application for condonation of delay.

The Division Bench condoned the delay after finding that sufficient cause had been shown.

Whether the delay of 1,090 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned?

Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the State to reconsider the respondents’ claim for appointment as Lecturers or, alternatively, as Lab Assistants?

Whether similarly situated part-time teachers possessed a legal or statutory right to regularisation or appointment against the posts of Lecturers or Lab Assistants?

An administrative instruction does not create a statutory right to regularisation and no person has an enforceable right to claim regularisation against a particular post.

Regularisation is a benefit that may be granted by the State Government, subject to the availability of sanctioned posts.

The Court further relied on its decision in State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajesh Kumar Pathak & Others, WA No. 55 of 2023, which was stated to have dealt with an identical issue.

The Division Bench found that the respondents’ claim was materially identical to the claims rejected in WA Nos. 227 of 2013 and 242 of 2013, where the Court had held that administrative instructions did not confer a statutory right to regularisation and that regularisation could not be ordered without available posts.

Since the learned Single Judge had directed the State to take a fresh decision on the respondents’ claims for appointment as Lecturers or Lab Assistants, without the respondents having an enforceable legal right to such relief, the direction was held to be unsustainable.

The respondents’ counsel did not dispute the State’s reliance on the earlier decisions.

Consequently, the precedent governing similarly situated candidates was applied to set aside the Single Judge’s order.

On merits, it held that the order dated 30 March 2022 in WPS No. 735 of 2020 was not sustainable in law because the respondents had no statutory or enforceable right to appointment or regularisation as Lecturers or Lab Assistants.

The order of the learned Single Judge was accordingly set aside, the writ appeal was allowed, and no order as to costs was made.