DAVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the speaking order dtd. 3/9/2024, Annexure P-9, whereby the petitioners' prayer to frame a policy of reegularisation has been rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sougght directing the respondents to regularise thhem in service on the posts of Assistant Professors in their respective Departments from the date of initial appointment on contract basis, with coonsequential benefits.

(2.) 2.1. The petition has been filed with the averments that the petitioners fulfill the requisite qualificatioons for the post of Assistant Professor laid down by the University Grants Commission (UGC)/All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).They were given contractual appointment as Teaching Associates on consolidated salary in various Departments of the respondent-University on the recommendations of ad hoc selection committee(s), pursuant to advertisement(s) inviting applications for 'walk-in-interview'. The appointment letters were issued on different dates between 2010-2015, collectively appended to the petition as Annexure P-2, and they accordingly joined their respective Departments, viz., Computer Science and Engineering, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Mechanical Engineering, Food Technology, Mass Communication and Physiotherapy.

(3.) In this factual background, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners were appointed after rigorous process of selection on the recommendation of the ad hoc selection committee(s). They fulfill the requisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor in their respective Departments, and have rendered more than ten years of unblemished service. Their work and duties are identical to the ones assigned to regular Assistant Professors, and it has also been established vide office order dtd. 1/10/2019, that they are working against sanctioned posts. Accordingly, they are entitled to regularisation in service as Assistant Professors. Not doing so amounts to their exploitation, which has been deprecated by the Courts time and again. Besides, the petitioners are not backdoor entrants, as their initial appointments were not illegal. At best, the same can be termed irregular, which does not disentitle them to claim regularisation. In support of the contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, and also upon a co-ordinate Bench judgment, dtd. 6/11/2025, rendered in CWP-26899-2025 titled Nishi and another v. Panjab University and others, ordering regularisation of Assistant Professors working on temporary basis.