Prior rejection under State Universities Act does not bar regularization claim under subsequent Amendment Rules.

The petitioner has been working as an Assistant Professor/Lecturer (Commerce) on a contractual basis at Kumaon University, Nainital, since August 17, 2010

On April 13, 2026, the University issued a notification/advertisement for the substantive post of Assistant Professor (Commerce)

The petitioner challenged this advertisement, seeking regularization under the "Daily Wage, Work-Charged, Contract, Fixed-Pay, Part-time and Ad-hoc Employees Regularization (Amendment) Rules, 2025," notified on December 5, 2025

The University contended that the petitioner’s claim for regularization had already been rejected on May 3, 2025

However, the petitioner argued that the previous rejection was under Section 31(3)(b) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, and did not account for the new 2025 Regularization Rules

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for regularization under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, precludes her from seeking regularization under the subsequent Regularization (Amendment) Rules, 2025

2. Whether the University is required to consider the petitioner’s candidature for regularization before or alongside the fresh recruitment process initiated by the impugned advertisement

Daily Wage, Work-Charged, Contract, Fixed-Pay, Part-time and Ad-hoc Employees Regularization (Amendment) Rules, 2025

Section 31(3)(b) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973

the principle that a new statutory notification creates a fresh ground for consideration, independent of prior rejections based on older, different statutory provisions

The Court noted that the University's prior rejection of the petitioner's claim (dated May 3, 2025) occurred before the 2025 Regularization Rules were even enacted

The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument that the 2025 Rules offer a separate and independent avenue for regularization

Since a High-Powered Committee had already been constituted by the State and University to examine such claims, and no decision had been rendered regarding the petitioner under the new Rules, the Court determined that her eligibility must be formally assessed

The Court logic suggested that proceeding with fresh recruitment without deciding on the regularization of an existing long-term employee (16 years of service) under current rules would be premature

The Court held that any appointment made pursuant to the impugned advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) shall be subject to the final decision on the petitioner’s representation, and this condition must be explicitly stated in any appointment letter issued to third parties