Temporary employees appointed via constitutional procedures are entitled to regularization, highlighting the need for compliance with recruitment mandates to ensure fairness and uphold employee rights.

JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of Advertisement No.1/2025 dated 12.04.2025 whereby post of Assistant Professors have been advertised. They are further seeking direction to respondents to regularize them.

2. Respondent No.1-Panjab University issued advertisement No.9/2012 inviting applications for various posts of Assistant Professors on temporary basis for its constituent colleges. Petitioners appeared for interview and came to be selected. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Assistant Professor (Commerce) and No.2 as Assistant Professor (Computer Science). They joined service in September’ 2012. The respondent for the last 12 years is renewing contract of the petitioners. The posts held by the petitioners are sanctioned posts and meant for direct recruitment. The respondent has issued impugned advertisement inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Professor. The advertised posts include posts of petitioners. They are claiming that respondent No.1 has advertised posts by unlawfully bypassing Punjab Public Service Commission. The respondent is bound to follow recruitment procedure for constituent colleges as per Punjab Government Rules.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that petitioners were appointed against sanctioned post. They are working since 2012. Their appointment was made against an advertisement. They were subjected to interview. They are getting regular pay scale. There may be some irregularity in their appointment, however, there was no illegality in their appointment. They were concededly appointed on temporary basis, however, their tenure was regularly extended. Their remuneration was also increased. They deserve to be regularized. Their claim is squarely covered by judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Versus Union of India and Others , 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, Shripal and Another Versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 (4) SLR 467, State of Karnataka and Others Versus Umadevi and Others , 2006 AIR SC 1806 and State of Karnataka and Others Versus M.L. Kesari and Others , 2010 AIR SC 2587 as well as judgment passed by Orissa High Court in Sushant Kumar and Others Versus Central University of Odisha, Koraput and Others , 2025 (2) ILR Cuttack 1256.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners were appointed on temporary basis. Their initial appointment was for one academic session. As there were no regular appointments, tenure of petitioners was extended from time to time. In view of order of Supreme Court in Hargurpratap Singh Versus State of Punjab and Others , 2007 (13) SCC 292 as well as order dated 02.08.2017 passed by this Court in CWP No.2625 of 2017 titled as Monika Prabhakar Versus Panjab University and Others , the petitioners were not substituted by another set of temporary employees. The respondent extended their tenure and every extension was for an academic session. They accepted terms and conditions of the contract, thus, cannot claim regularization. Act of respondent amounts to approbation and reprobation of contract executed between the parties. Stand of respondent is covered by judgments of Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan versus Daya Lal , 2011 (2) SCC 429 , Bombay High Court in Sudhir and Others Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others