JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 10.02.2026 (P/6), whereby the services of the petitioner were relieved in an arbitrary manner. With a further prayer to direct the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner for regularization.

Brief Facts

2. The respondent–Institute, namely Indian Institute of Technology Ropar, issued Advertisement No. 02/2023 (P/1) inviting applications for, inter alia, two posts of Technical Officer against sanctioned unreserved vacancies, ostensibly on direct recruitment basis. Clause 16 of the advertisement provided that in the event a suitable candidate was not available, appointment could be offered on contract/deputation. The petitioner, being eligible, applied and participated in the selection process. Upon declaration of result on 08.11.2024, she was issued an offer of appointment dated 30.10.2024 (P/2) appointing her as Technical Officer on contractual basis for one year, subject to review for extension/regularization, which she accepted and joined.

3. Her contractual tenure was thereafter extended vide order dated 03.11.2025 (P/5) for a further period of three months or till the post was filled on regular basis, whichever was earlier. Subsequently, upon review of her performance by an Assessment Committee, the respondents issued office order dated 10.02.2026 (P/6) relieving her from service after serving one month’s notice in terms of the contractual conditions.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Contentions

On behalf of petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Advertisement No. 02/2023 issued by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar was explicitly for direct recruitment against sanctioned posts of Technical Officer and did not envisage filling the post on purely contractual basis as a matter of course. It is submitted that the petitioner successfully underwent the entire selection process, including presentation and interview, and was selected against a regular vacancy. Offering her appointment on contractual basis, despite the advertisement being for regular recruitment, is argued to be contrary to the very foundation of the recruitment process and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. It is further contended that the respondents acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily in subsequently issuing Advertisement No. 01/2024 for the same post and appointing another candidate on regular basis with probation, while the petitioner selected earlier was continued on contract. This, according to learned counsel, amounts to hostile discrimination and a clear instance of pick-and-choose policy. It is argued that once the petitioner was selected pursuant to a regular recruitment process against a sanctioned post, the respondents could not alter the nature of appointment unilaterally.

7. It is argued that the action of relieving the petitioner on the ground of unsatisfactory performance is alleged to be a camouflage, lacking transparency and fairness, particularly when no detailed inquiry or opportunity of hearing preceded the decision. The petitioner asserts a legitimate expectation of regularization in light of the terms of advertisement and her continued service, and submits that the impugned order dated 10.02.2026 (P/6) is arbitrary, mala fide, and liable to be quashed.

On behalf of respondent-State

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Clause 16 of Advertisement No. 02/2023 (Annexure P-1) expressly empowered the Institute to offer appointment on contractual basis if a suitable candidate for regular appointment was not available. The petitioner applied with full knowledge of this stipulation and, having participated in the selection process without objection, is estopped from challenging the terms of the advertisement at this stage.

9. It is contended that the offer of appointment dated