SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1819

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Mohd. Sazrin - Petitioner
Versus
H.P. University - Respondent.
CWP No. 20772 of 2025
Decided On : 31-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate.

Contractual service cannot be backdated to regular from initial appointment despite prior selection, where government approved only contractual terms, accepted without protest; claim barred by 19-year delay, laches, and acquiescence implying waiver.

Headnote:(A) Service jurisprudence - Contractual appointment - Advertisement for posts of Drivers did not specify regular basis - Posts chargeable against grant-in-aid required government approval - Approval granted strictly on contractual basis with no claim for regularization - Appointment letter issued on contractual terms explicitly barring regularization claims - Selected candidate accepted appointment without protest or challenge - Cannot seek treatment as regular from contractual commencement date after 19 years - Doctrines of delay, laches and acquiescence bar stale service claims - Unexplained prolonged inaction amounts to tacit consent, implying waiver and disrupting settled administrative decisions. (Paras 3, 4, 4(i), 5)

(B) Delay and laches - In service disputes, unreasonable delay without justification non-suits claimant - Acquiescence involves passive acceptance with knowledge, barring subsequent claims - Distinguished from mere delay; implies estoppel - Applies where claimant sleeps over rights, allowing cause to lapse - Writ courts exercise discretion cautiously, refusing relief to indolent litigants. (Paras 4(i), 4(ii), 5)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner appointed as Driver on contractual basis pursuant to selection process initiated by advertisement, but government approved only contractual filling with fixed pay and no regularization claims. Joined in 2006, services regularized in 2012 per policy. Filed writ in 2025 seeking backdated regularization to 2006, claiming initial selection deemed regular.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner's contention lacks substance; contractual appointment accepted without demur; claim barred by 19-year delay from contractual date and 13 years from regularization; doctrines of delay, laches and acquiescence apply squarely.

Issues: Whether contractual appointment per government approval can be deemed regular from selection date despite explicit terms and acceptance; impact of prolonged unexplained delay and acquiescence on service regularization claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Original advertisement silent on regular basis; government mandated contractual; unconditional acceptance and subsequent regularization without protest estops claim; delay defeats equity in service matters, preventing reopening of settled positions affecting finality. Result : Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. contractual appointments mandated for grant-in-aid charged posts. (Para 1 , 3)
2. delay, laches, acquiescence bar stale service claims. (Para 2 , 5)
3. selection process implies regular appointment from contractual date. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

The petitioner is presently aged 50 years. He has instituted the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent-University to treat him as a regular Driver (Heavy Vehicle) from the date of his appointment on contractual basis i.e. 23.05.2006.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

3. The case.
3(i) The respondent-University issued a notice on 15.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) for recruitment to the post of Drivers. The said notice was based on a circular of even date inviting applications for the post of Drivers including one post of Heavy Vehicle Driver in the pay scale of Rs. 4020-6200/-. The relevant portion of the circular issued by the respondent-University reads as under: -

“Application on the plain paper are invited for the following posts of the driver as per the qualification and eligibility conditions given hereunder: -
Drivers (Heavy Vehicle) in the pay scale of Rs. 4020-120-4260- 140-4400-5000-160-5800-200-6200.
No. of posts
Two
One (SC)
One (UR)
Age: 18 to 45 years
Essential requirement: a citizen of India. Minimum educational qualifications:
On the basis of trade test and interview of persons possessing (i) valid driving license for a heavy vehicle (ii) at least 5 years' experience of driving heavy vehicle. (iii) At least middle pass. However, preference will be given to matriculate and (iv) minimum height 160 CM
Drivers (light vehicle) in the pay scale of Rs. 3330-110-3660-180- 260-140-4400-150-5000-160-5800-200-6200.
No. of posts
Three
Two (UR)
One (SC)
Age: 18 to 45 years
Essential requirement: a citizen of India.”












3(ii) On 14.11.2005, the respondent-University addressed a communication to the Principal Secretary (Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-2), seeking approval of the State Government for filling up the vacant posts of Drivers in H.P. University. As per the contents of the said office communication, in view of the notification dated 22.09.2005 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Education, the sanctioned vacant posts of Drivers were to be charged against grant-in-aid recoverable from the State Government. Since the posts of Drivers in question were being charged against grant-in-aid, approval was solicited by the University from the State Government for filling up the said posts.
3(iii) The Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Education, vide office letter dated 20.01.2006 (Annexure P-3), conveyed its approval for filling up the vacant posts of Drivers (one Heavy Vehicle Driver, three Light Vehicle Drivers) and Lab Attendants (five in number), strictly on contractual basis on a “starting basic pay scale (fixed).” The said office letter further directed that the contractual appointment letter should categorically make it clear that no claim pertaining to regularization or other allied benefits would be entertained. The respondent-University was also directed to re- advertise the posts accordingly.
3(iv) Pursuant to the aforesaid approval granted by the State Government for filling up the vacant posts including one post of Driver (Heavy Vehicle), the respondent-University addressed a letter on 22.02.2006 to the Principal Secretary (Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-4) stating that the selection process conducted by the University had already been completed in December, 2005 and, therefore, the posts could not be re-advertised. It was, however, clarified that appointment letters to the selected candidates would be issued strictly in accordance with the conditions conveyed by the State Government. The relevant portion of the office letter dated 22.02.2006 pertaining to the posts of Driver reads as under: -

“Subject: Approval of the Government
































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top