State Can't Make Contractual Appointments On Minimum Salary For Infinity, Nor Take Advantage Of Mass Unemployment: P&H High Court
Coming down heavily on the prolonged practice of engaging employees on contractual terms, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the State cannot make contractual appointments for infinity on minimum salary, nor can it take advantage of mass unemployment to exploit its citizens.The observation was made while directing the Panjab University to regularise contractual Assistant...
Coming down heavily on the prolonged practice of engaging employees on contractual terms, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the State cannot make contractual appointments for infinity on minimum salary, nor can it take advantage of mass unemployment to exploit its citizens.
The observation was made while directing the Panjab University to regularise contractual Assistant Professors working on ad-hoc basis since 2012.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "The States/U.T. have made hay from the findings of the Constitution Bench. They have started making appointment on contract/ad-hoc/temporary/part time basis in every department including education which is a character and nation building department. "
"Many teachers appointed on contract basis are getting minuscule salary even in comparison to regularly appointed peons. The exchequer is siphoned off for subsidies instead of appointing regular employees and paying regular pay scale," the Court added.
It further said that, "The Supreme Court, in case of exigencies, had permitted to make appointment on contract basis and did not permit States and its agencies to make it a routine practice. The Court had emphasized to make appointments in public employment after following procedure prescribed for regular recruitment and in accordance with mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
The Court made it clear that, intention and imprimatur of the court was to inhibit and discourage backdoor entry. The Court did not permit to make contractual recruitment for infinity and pay minimum of pay scale.
"The State being a model employer neither can exploit its citizen nor take advantage of mass unemployment. It is expected to make recruitment in accordance with prescribed procedure and on permanent basis. It cannot keep hanging sword of termination," the judge said.
The writ petition had challenged the Advertisement through which the University invited applications for the posts of Assistant Professors, including those currently held by the petitioners. They also sought directions for their regularization.
The petitioners—appointed in 2012 as Assistant Professors in Commerce and Computer Science respectively—contended that they were selected pursuant to Advertisement No.9/2012, after interviews, and have been continuously working for over twelve years with yearly contract renewals. Their counsel argued that since the posts were sanctioned and their appointments made through due process, they are entitled to regularization, relying on judgments of the Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India, M.L. Kesari v. State of Karnataka, Umadevi v. State of Karnataka, and others.
The University, on the other hand, contended that the petitioners were purely contractual employees appointed for one academic session at a time, and that extensions of tenure did not confer any right to regularization.
After examining the record and referring to catena of judgements, the Court observed that the petitioners had been appointed after due advertisement, interview, and selection against sanctioned posts, and had served uninterruptedly since 2012 without any adverse record or protection of any interim order. The Court noted that while Umadevi (2006) cautioned against regularization of irregular or backdoor entrants, the ruling could not be used as a “shield for exploitation” where appointments were made through a proper procedure.
Justice Bansal highlighted that, "Unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme."
"It would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible", the Court added.
Referring to recent Supreme Court decisions in Jaggo v. Union of India and K. Velajagan v. Union of India (2025), the Court emphasized that “no employee can be kept temporary for an indefinite period” and that the State and its institutions cannot perpetuate contractual engagements indefinitely despite the availability of sanctioned posts.
Holding that the petitioners' case stood on a different footing from irregular appointees, the High Court observed:
"The petitioners are not backdoor entrants. Their appointment was made after following procedure. There was advertisement. The petitioners filed applications. They were subjected to interview. In the advertisements, maximum age as well as qualification was prescribed. No candidate was selected who was not possessing UGC prescribed qualifications. The appointments were made against sanctioned posts. They are uninterruptedly working with University since 2012."
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, directing Panjab University to regularize the petitioners within six weeks. It further ordered that if no such order is passed within that period, the petitioners “shall be deemed to have been regularized,” and would be entitled to seniority and regular pay from the expiry of that period.
Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the respondent-University.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
Title: Nishi and Another v. Panjab University and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 430