Selected candidates for regular posts cannot be arbitrarily appointed on contract; such appointments deemed regular from inception, fictional service breaks invalid, entitling continuity, re-engagement, and regularization benefits sans back wages.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the above captioned cases and similar reliefs have been prayed for, this Court, after clubbing all the cases together, heard them jointly and are being disposed of vide the common judgment.

2. By way of instant petitions, petitioners have prayed for the reliefs, which are similar, as such, reliefs prayed for in CWP No. 623 of 2025 are reproduced herein below:-

“(i) That the impugned acts of the respondent-University above stated being contrary to all norms of justice may be quashed and set aside with direction to the respondent-University to consider the petitioner having been appointed on regular basis on and w.e.f. 21.3.2022 for all intents and purposes i.e. for the purpose of pay, seniority etc. etc.

(ii) That the impugned act of the respondent in giving fictional breaks in the third year of contractual services of the petitioner being contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and by this Hon’ble Court may very kindly be quashed and set- aside with directions to the respondent-University to regularize the period of fictional breaks of the petitioner;

(iii) That in the alternative direction may be issued to the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner on and w.e.f. 21.3.2022 on completion of continuous service on contract basis for a period of two years to secure the ends of law and justice;

(iv) That verbal termination/ retrenchment/ dispensing with the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2025 may be quashed and set aside with direction to the respondent-University to treat the petitioner in continuous service without any break of any kind whatsoever and to allow the petitioner to continue serving as security guard without keeping any ill will/malice against the petitioner for approaching this Hon’ble Court for the redressal of his grievances.”

3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as highlighted in the petitions and further canvassed by learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that though the respondent-University had issued advertisement dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) for filling up various posts including the post of Security Guard (Male) on regular basis, but while making appointment, it resorted to pick and choose method by offering regular appointment to some of the candidates, whereas petitioners, who though were also declared successful, was/were offered appointment on contract basis.

4. For having bird’s eye view, relevant facts as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that vide advertisement dated 12.08.2021(Annexure P-1), respondent-University invited applications for various posts including the post of Security Guard (Male) figuring at Sr. No.10 in Group-D. As per the advertisement, 10 posts were available (UR-6, SC-2, OBC-1 and EWS-1). It specifically came to be notified in the advertisement that number of post(s) is/are tentative and may increase