High Court Orders Panjab University To Regularise Contractual Assistant Professors Working Since 2012

In a significant relief to long-serving contractual teachers, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed Panjab University, Chandigarh, to regularize the services of two Assistant Professors who have been working continuously since 2012 on sanctioned posts. The Court held that the petitioners were not “backdoor entrants” and had been appointed after a proper selection process against advertised, sanctioned vacancies.Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "as per judgment of this Court as well as Supreme Court, adhoc, temporary, part time, daily wage or contractual workers cannot be regularize if their appointment was not made as per procedure prescribed for regular appointments. The petitioners were appointed after following due procedure. They are fully qualified. They are working with the University since 2012 and that too without any protection of this Court or any other Court. They were selected against sanctioned posts."The Court further added that, "it was revealed that there are other teachers who are working for more than 10 years as contractual. The respondent, to avoid litigation, may consider claim of other teachers in the light of instant judgment."The writ petition 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.Also Read: State Can't Make Contractual Appointments On Minimum Salary For Infinity, Nor Take Advantage Of Mass Unemployment: P&H High CourtMr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the...

High Court Orders Panjab University To Regularise Contractual Assistant Professors Working Since 2012

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags