Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Panjab University To Regularize Assistant Professors Appointed Through Due Process And Serving On Contract Since 2012
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Single Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal granted relief to long-serving contractual teachers, directing 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” but had been appointed through a proper selection process following a public advertisement for sanctioned vacancies. Observing that their prolonged contractual engagement despite due recruitment was unjustified, the Court ordered the University to complete their regularization within six weeks and permitted it to fill other remaining posts under the current advertisement, while advising similar consideration for other long-serving contractual faculty members
The petitioners, serving as Assistant Professors in Commerce and Computer Science since 2012, approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to set aside an advertisement issued by Panjab University for filling Assistant Professor posts and to direct their regularization. They contended that their appointments had been made against sanctioned posts following a proper advertisement and interview process, and that their contracts had been renewed regularly for over twelve years. They submitted that they were drawing regular pay scales and that their appointments, though temporary, were not illegal. The petitioners relied on various Supreme Court rulings including Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), Umadevi (2006), and M.L. Kesari (2010) to support their claim.
The University argued that the appointments were temporary and contractual, extended from time to time without conferring any right to regularization. It relied on precedents such as State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal (2011) and Umadevi (2006), maintaining that temporary service does not entitle employees to absorption. The respondents asserted that the petitioners had accepted contractual terms and were estopped from seeking regularization. The Court examined documentary evidence of the advertisement, appointment letters, and service extensions issued by the University
The Court recorded that “the petitioners were appointed in 2012 and 2013 after a due process of selection involving advertisement, interviews and approval of the competent authority.” It noted that “their appointment letters indicate that they were engaged against sanctioned posts, though initially on contract.” The Bench observed that “for more than ten years, the petitioners have been continuously serving Panjab University without any break and have been discharging duties similar to those performed by regular Assistant Professors.”
The Court observed that “the conceded position emerging from the record is that petitioners are holding post of Assistant Professors since September 2012... appointed against an advertisement... subjected to interview and selected against sanctioned post lying vacant.” It recorded that there was no illegality in their appointment and that they possessed the requisite UGC qualifications.
Referring to constitutional principles, the Court stated that “the regularization of part-time employees is violative of Articles 14, 16 & 309 of the Constitution of India... unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme.”
The judgment cited Uma Devi (2006) and subsequent Supreme Court rulings including Ilmo Devi (2021), Nihal Singh (2013), M.L. Kesari (2010), and Jaggo (2024). The Court recorded that “no employee can be kept temporary for an indefinite period. An employee has right to be considered for regularization.” It quoted that “appointments were not illegal but possibly ‘irregular,’ and where employees had served continuously against sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount.”
It stated further that “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.” The Court found that “the petitioners are not backdoor entrants... they were appointed against sanctioned posts... fully qualified... working with the University since 2012 and that too without any protection of this Court or any other Court.”
Finally, it observed that “the case of petitioners is squarely covered by recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra)... despite following due appointment procedure, the University has kept the petitioners contractual for more than 12 years.”
The Court directed: “The respondents are hereby directed to regularize the petitioners within six weeks from today. If no order of regularization is passed within 6 weeks from today, they shall be deemed to be regularized. They would be entitled to seniority and regular pay from the expiry of aforesaid period.”
“The respondent would be free to fill other posts against impugned advertisement. During the course of hearing, 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.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Damanbir Kaur, Advocate for Panjab University; Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Advocate for the Union of India.
Case Title: Nishi and Another v. Panjab University and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:152943
Case No.: CWP-26899-2025
Bench: Justice Jagmohan Bansal
