Uttarakhand HC Directs 2011-Rules Eligibility Review For Teachers Claiming Nearly 29 Years’ Service

The petitioners said they were appointed as part-time teachers at HNB Garhwal State University in 1997 and continued serving after it became a Central University in 2009.

By an order dated 11 May 2017, they were adjusted against available vacancies as contractual teachers in government degree/postgraduate colleges in Uttarakhand, where they served as Assistant Professors.

They sought consideration for regularisation under the State’s 2011 Regularisation Rules, as amended, and parity in pay and other benefits.

The State opposed the claim, arguing that the petitioners’ university service and subsequent contractual adjustment did not make them eligible for regularisation in government colleges.

The Court considered the Uttarakhand State Universities Act, 1973, including Section 31 and the State’s submission that Section 31(3)(c) provides for regularisation of part-time or ad hoc university teachers; it did not decide how those provisions applied to the petitioners’ claim for regularisation in government colleges.

It also considered the Uttarakhand Government’s 2011 Regularisation Rules, as amended, and directed the competent authority to determine whether the petitioners fell within their scope.

The Court observed that the petitioners’ reported adjustment against available vacancies meant their claim could not be cursorily dismissed and warranted examination; their long service gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the claim would be considered according to law.

The judgment records the petitioners’ reliance on Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam, Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025, but does not state or apply a rule from that decision.

The Court did not determine that the petitioners were entitled to regularisation.

Given their asserted lengthy service and reported adjustment in government colleges against available vacancies, it held that their claim warranted a reasoned examination rather than summary rejection.

It therefore directed the Secretary, Higher Education, to decide whether they were eligible for consideration under the 2011 Rules.

If eligible, their claim was to be referred to a Regularisation Committee for assessment under the Rules.

The judgment did not separately adjudicate the claim for regular pay and other benefits.

If found eligible, their claim was to be placed before a Regularisation Committee, to be constituted within four weeks of that eligibility decision; the Committee was to decide the claim within six weeks thereafter.

The Court expressed the expectation that the entire exercise would be completed within four months and ordered that the petitioners’ service status quo be maintained until a final order was passed.

No final determination of entitlement to regularisation or pay parity was made.