IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ., GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
Dr. Dinkar Kisan Choudhari, R/o. Morwadi - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No.10393 of 2025 Along With Interim Application No.12509 of 2025, Contempt Petition No.642 of 2025 In Writ Petition No.10393 of 2025, Writ Petition No.8214 of 2025
Decided On : 11-11-2025
JUDGMENT :
{ PER, GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. }
These are cross-petitions challenging the impugned order dated 23rd July 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Original Application No.669 of 2023. For the sake of convenience, Dr. Chaudhari who was one of the original applicants before the Tribunal is referred to as the ‘petitioner’ in this order, and the Union of India and its entities/officers are referred to as the ‘respondents’. This common order disposes of both the petitions.
2. Pursuant to an advertisement, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor on contractual basis with the College of Military Engineering in the year 2017. He was appointed every year until 31st March 2023 and from 3rd April 2023 to 30th April 2023 on contract basis. Each year, a fresh advertisement was issued and a fresh contract was signed. On 19th April 2023, the petitioner along with other applicants filed Original Application No.669 of 2023 before the Tribunal inter alia claiming:
“b)To direct the respondent to regularize the service of the petitioners as Assistant Professors in the College of Military Engineering, Pune by giving the effect of permanency in service since first appointment.
c) To direct the respondents herein to grant the benefits of seniority, age relaxation and other consequential benefits including the benefits of pay-fixation and other benefits for purposes of fixation of pension to the applicants from the date of initial appointment of applicants as Assistant Professors as is granted to similarly situated permanent employees.
d) Respondent be directed to release the arrears of pay and all service benefits as per AICTE Regulation 2019/UGC Acts Regulation 2018 from the date of initial appointment.
e) To direct the respondents herein to consider the full time experience of other private Engineering Institutes for CAS benefits.”
3. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 23rd July 2024 denied the regularization of the service, but granted the monetary relief to the petitioner and the other applicants as follows:
“(a) O.A is partly allowed. The relief of regularization is rejected.
(b) The respondents are directed to pay the gross salary per month as admissible to the Assistant Professors from the date of their appointment till their termination.
(c) Rest of the reliefs are rejected.”
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Writ Petition No.8214 of 2025 is filed by the respondents-Union of India against the order and direction of prayer (b) quoted above. Writ Petition No.10393 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner challenging the rejection of regularization of his service. An additional challenge is laid by him to the order dated 23rd November 2024, by which Review Application No.42 of 2024 in the Original Application was dismissed.
5. By a common order dated 29th July 2025, both these petitions were admitted and, by way of an interim relief, the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner and others on an ad-hoc basis during the pendency of this petition till the regularly selected candidates are available. It was further directed that in the event the respondent-College of Military Engineering decides to fill the post on regular basis, it was open to the petitioner to participate in the process or approach this Court for appropriate reliefs. Contempt Petition No.642 of 2025 is filed in this Court by the petitioner alleging breach of the order dated 29th July 2025.
6. Mr. R.R. Shetty, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal erroneously rejected the prayer for regularization on the grounds that the petitioner was not in service on the date of filing the Original Application and that he was not appointed through the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). He submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the documentary evidence, including the appointment letter granting engagement from 3rd April 2023 to 30th April 2023. He submits that all procedural requirements for a regul
Contractual employees have no right to claim regularization or equivalent benefits unless stipulated by law, as established by precedent.
Long service on a contractual basis does not confer a legal right to regularization without a formal scheme in place, as established by Supreme Court precedents.
Point of law: Service Law - Contractual employment - Regularization of Service - Having applied for appointment to various posts pursuant to a notification of 2019 and being unsuccessful (except one ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's long service as a Trained Graduate Teacher against a substantive vacant post and the Government's decision to declare the non....
Employers must clearly specify the nature of appointments in job advertisements; failure to do so leads to regularization of initially contractual positions when recruitment processes are followed.
Temporary or casual employment does not confer legal rights to regularization; adherence to proper recruitment processes is mandatory for permanent appointments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.