The court recognized the legal obligation of the respondent to consider the regularization requests of employees with over 10 years of service and emphasized adherence to established legal precedents.

ORDER :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following prayers:

i. Declare that the petitioners are entitled for regularization/absorption on permanent basis as permanent employees in respondent No.2- University;

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to regularize the service of the petitioners on permanent basis to the post against which they are working;

iii. Direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner on par with the permanent employees of the 2^nd respondent university; and iv. Issue such other writs, direction and orders deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

3. The petitioners have been working for more than 10 years continuously, and the petitioners have submitted a representation to the respondent-University to consider the request of the petitioners for regularization. Notwithstanding the same, the respondents have failed to consider the request of the petitioners and are illegally denying the benefit of regularization. Hence, the petitioners submitted a representation on 02.08.2022 vide Annexure-A. Hence, filed this writ petition directing the respondents to consider Annexure-A.

4. Respondent No.2 filed a statement of objections stating that the writ petition is not maintainable, and it is contended there is no cause of action to the petitioners to file the writ petition and they have no legal right to claim a relief against the respondents and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and also learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are working in the respondent- University for more than 10 years, and they submitted a representation requesting for regularization of their service. The respondent-University has not considered the representation vide Annexure-A, and has not passed any order. Hence, on these grounds, he submits that direction be issued to respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that if reasonable time is granted, respondent No.2 would consider the representation vide Annexure-A, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

8. Heard and perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

9. There is no dispute that the petitioners are working in the respondent- University. The petitioners submitted an application/representation for regularization and fixation of a pay scale, alleging that the petitioners are working for more than 10 years and they are entitled for regularization. The said representation was submitted to the respondent-University on 02.08.2022. The respondents have not passed any order on the said representation as respondent No.2 agreed to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

10. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation vide Annexure-A, keeping in view of the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jaggo vs. Union of India and Ors. in SLP (C) No.5580/2024 disposed of on 20.12.2024 and Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another in C.A.No.8558/2018 disposed of on 19.08.2025 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

iii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to make a fresh representation. If