Public selection and long service against perennial posts creates an enforceable right to consider regularisation.

The Petitioners were appointed to various administrative and technical posts at Delhi Technological University (DTU) between 2010 and 2011 following public advertisements and a selection process involving screening and interviews.

Although the appointments were labeled "contractual" and initially for one year, the Petitioners served uninterrupted for nearly fifteen years through periodic extensions.

They performed perennial functions, received benefits like HRA and EPF, and were restricted from seeking outside employment.

The University later initiated regular recruitment in 2018-19 and 2025, asserting that the Petitioners had no right to regularisation based on the terms of their contract and the principles in Umadevi.

The court primarily applied the constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

It balanced the restrictive doctrine from Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), which prohibits "back-door" entries, against the "irregular vs. illegal" distinction clarified in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari.

It further relied on Vinod Kumar v. Union of India and Jaggo v. Union of India, which hold that long, blemish-free service in perennial roles cannot be ignored merely due to a contractual label.

Finally, it applied Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, establishing that the State as a "model employer" cannot use unequal bargaining power to enforce waivers of fundamental rights via contractual disclaimers.

The court reasoned that the Petitioners’ entry was not "illegal" or "back-door" because it followed public advertisements and selection by duly constituted committees, distinguishes it from the clandestine appointments prohibited by Umadevi.

The court found that the University’s conduct—extending contracts for 15 years, providing regular pay components (HRA, DA), and exercising full administrative control—transformed the engagement into a "parallel cadre."

It rejected the University's reliance on "contractual undertakings," noting that such clauses cannot override Article 14.

The court further held that the absence of Recruitment Rules at the time of hiring was a failure of the employer, which cannot be used to penalize employees who have rendered a decade of essential service.

It concluded that mere participation in a subsequent recruitment process does not extinguish rights matured through long service.

The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the University to: (i) constitute a Committee within eight weeks to review sanctioned strength and vacancies;

(ii) take steps to create posts where institutional requirements exist;

and (iii) consider the eligible Petitioners for regularisation within six months.

The court further ordered that the Petitioners shall not be displaced by outsourcing or fresh contractual staff until this exercise is completed.