DR. SAKSHI TEWARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are presently working as Assistant Professors in Soban Singh Jeena University (respondent no. 3 herein). Their initial appointment was on contractual basis, on a fixed salary, with respondent no. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, before they were appointed on contractual basis, they had passed the recruitment process. They claim to be working without any interruption, or breakage. Some of the contractual employees, who were senior to the petitioners, were regularized by the Executive Council of respondent no. 2 on 22/10/2018. The Regularization Rules, 2013 were duly adopted by respondent no. 2. However, before the case of the petitioners could be taken up for regularization, the Regularization Rules came to be challenged before this Court in WPSB No. 616/2018. The said Writ Petition was decided by this Court, by judgment dtd. 22/2/2024, and this Court ordered modification of the 2013 Rules, so that, after 4/12/2018, only those, who had completed 10 years' period of service, would be entitled for regularization. The provision for regularization of service, on completing five years' service, was, accordingly, read down, and was confined to those, who were regularized prior to 4/12/2018. It seems that, thereafter, the State Government carried out amendment in the Regularization Rules.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by issuance of an advertisement by respondent no. 3 for filling up various posts of Assistant Professors in the subjects of Commerce, Sociology, Physics, Psychology, Geography etc. (Annexure No. 2). They are claiming right to be considered for regularization, and they have also challenged the vires of Clause 4(1) of the Daily Wage, Work-Charge, Contract, Fixed-Pay, Part Time and Ad-hoc Employees Regularization Rules, 2013, as amended by Amendment Rules, 2025, contending that the amendment, carried out by Amendment Rules, 2025, is against the spirit of the judgment dtd. 22/2/2024, passed in WPSB No. 616/2018, and other connected matters.

(3.) On the last date, we granted time to learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 to obtain instructions, as to whether the Regularization Rules, 2013, and the amendments made therein, have been adopted by the University, or not.