University Directed to Reserve Vacancies Pending Consideration of Contractual Employees' Claims for Regularization

In brief

The question

Whether the recruitment process for new Assistant Professors should be stayed or restricted pending the consideration of the petitioners' claims for regularization.

The court held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 3 to proceed with the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.02.2026, subject to the condition that eight posts must remain vacant.

It also directed

These eight posts shall not be filled until the six-member committee, constituted on 31.12.2025, completes its consideration of the petitioners’ cases for regularization.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The petitioners are Assistant Professors working on a contractual basis at Soban Singh Jeena University (Respondent No. 3), having previously served under Respondent No. 2.

¶ 1

They claim uninterrupted service and seek regularization, noting that senior colleagues were regularized in 2018 under the Regularization Rules, 2013.

¶ 1

Following a 2024 High Court judgment (WPSB No. 616/2018), the 2013 Rules were modified to require 10 years of service for regularization after 04.12.2018.

¶ 1

The petitioners challenged an advertisement dated 10.02.2026 issued by Respondent No. 3 to fill vacant posts and the vires of Clause 4(1) of the 2013 Rules as amended in 2025, arguing the amendment contradicts judicial precedents.

¶ 2

02Issues

i.Whether the recruitment process for new Assistant Professors should be stayed or restricted pending the consideration of the petitioners' claims for regularization.

¶ 8, 10

ii.Whether the University (Respondent No. 3) had formally adopted the Regularization Rules, 2013, and its subsequent amendments.

¶ 3-5

03Law Applied

The court considered the Daily Wage, Work-Charge, Contract, Fixed-Pay, Part-Time and Ad-hoc Employees Regularization Rules, 2013 (as amended by the Amendment Rules, 2025).

¶ 2

It adhered to the precedent set in the High Court judgment dated 22.02.2024 (WPSB No. 616/2018), which "read down" the service requirement from five years to ten years for those seeking regularization after 04.12.2018.

¶ 1

04Reasoning

The Court observed a discrepancy between the respondents: while Respondent No. 2 had adopted the Rules, Respondent No. 3 initially claimed it had not.

¶ 4-5

However, the Court highlighted an Office Order dated 31.12.2025 issued by Respondent No. 3, which established a six-member committee to evaluate contractual employees for regularization.

¶ 6-7

The Court reasoned that permitting the University to fill all advertised vacancies while this committee's decision was pending would create legal complications and potentially defeat the petitioners’ rights.

¶ 8

To balance the University's need for faculty against the petitioners' claims, the Court accepted the University's proposal to keep a specific number of seats vacant.

¶ 9-10

05Holding

¶ 10

These eight posts shall not be filled until the six-member committee, constituted on 31.12.2025, completes its consideration of the petitioners’ cases for regularization.

¶ 10

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

¶ 11

LawLens.Uttarakhand High Court

Original Court PDF