Prolonged contractual engagement for perennial teaching in public-funded institution mandates regularization with full benefits, rejecting ad-hocism and temporary exploitation despite need-based claims.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs: -

“(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as lecturer (now re-designated as Assistant Professor) forthwith by further directing the respondents to pay regular scale to the petitioner for which a Lecturer/Assistant Professor is entitled to as per the UGC norms.
(ii) That further an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and Annexure P-16, or any other similar Ad. Particularly qua subject of the petitioner and for the campus where the petitioner is working, may be quashed and set-aside by further directing the respondents not to hold interviews for the post of History at Ved Vyas Campus, Garli Balahar, Kangra, H.P.”

2. The petitioner is teaching subject of History in respondent No.3 Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (for short, “The Sansthan”) continuously since 2001. The instant petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2014 on the premise that despite the petitioner having rendered more than 13 years of continuous service, was being called upon to participate in a fresh selection process. Claiming a right to be regularized on the strength of long service rendered by the petitioner, the instant petition was filed for the reliefs as noticed above.

3. Indisputably, the petitioner is still serving respondent No.3 and, in this manner, the duration of service of petitioner has been more than 24 years.

4. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that though he has continuously been serving the Sansthan as a teacher in the subject of History, the nomenclature used for his post has been differently applied as part time teacher, period based teacher and contract employee from time to time. As per the petitioner, in the year 2002, the petitioner was being employed on one-year contract and thereafter his services were regularly extended from time to time. He was being paid Rs.5000/- per month as remuneration, which was revised to Rs.8000/- per month w.e.f. 13.08.2005.

5. It is also the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 14.07.2006 his tenure was extended till further orders or new appointment was made.

6. The petitioner has further alleged that in between 2001 to 2006, the petitioner was made to face three walk- in-interviews. In 2007, an advertisement was issued in National Newspaper, in pursuance to which the petitioner faced another interview at Delhi for the same post. Thereafter, the respondents started giving contractual appointment to the petitioner on year-to-year basis.

7. The salary of the petitioner, as alleged in the petition, was revised to Rs.12,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.07.2009 and Rs.20,000/- per month w.e.f. 17.06.2011.
Lastly, the petitioner was drawing revised salary of Rs.39,000/- per month at the time of filing of the petition.

8. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed their reply. It is stated that respondent No.2 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and was funded by grant-in-aid received from the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India.