Court balanced interests by allowing recruitment process but reserving eight posts unfilled pending committee's decision on contractual employees' regularization claims, preventing complications.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CJ.

1. The petitioners are presently working as Assistant Professors in Soban Singh Jeena University (respondent no. 3 herein). Their initial appointment was on contractual basis, on a fixed salary, with respondent no. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, before they were appointed on contractual basis, they had passed the recruitment process. They claim to be working without any interruption, or breakage. Some of the contractual employees, who were senior to the petitioners, were regularized by the Executive Council of respondent no. 2 on 22.10.2018. The Regularization Rules, 2013 were duly adopted by respondent no. 2. However, before the case of the petitioners could be taken up for regularization, the Regularization Rules came to be challenged before this Court in WPSB No. 616/2018. The said Writ Petition was decided by this Court, by judgment dated 22.02.2024, and this Court ordered modification of the 2013 Rules, so that, after 04.12.2018, only those, who had completed 10 years’ period of service, would be entitled for regularization. The provision for regularization of service, on completing five years’ service, was, accordingly, read down, and was confined to those, who were regularized prior to 04.12.2018. It seems that, thereafter, the State Government carried out amendment in the Regularization Rules.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by issuance of an advertisement by respondent no. 3 for filling up various posts of Assistant Professors in the subjects of Commerce, Sociology, Physics, Psychology, Geography etc. (Annexure No. 2). They are claiming right to be considered for regularization, and they have also challenged the vires of Clause 4(1) of the Daily Wage, Work-Charge, Contract, Fixed-Pay, Part Time and Ad-hoc Employees Regularization Rules, 2013, as amended by Amendment Rules, 2025, contending that the amendment, carried out by Amendment Rules, 2025, is against the spirit of the judgment dated 22.02.2024, passed in WPSB No. 616/2018, and other connected matters.

3. On the last date, we granted time to learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 to obtain instructions, as to whether the Regularization Rules, 2013, and the amendments made therein, have been adopted by the University, or not.

4. Shri S.S. Lingwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2-University, on instructions, states that respondent no. 2 had adopted the Regularization Rules long back.

5. Shri C.S. Rawat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3-University, submits that the Regularization Rules have not been adopted by respondent no.3.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention towards Office Order dated 31.12.2025, issued by Registrar, Soban Singh Jeena University (respondent no. 3 herein), whereby a Committee of six persons has been constituted, under the Chairmanship of Professor P.S. Bisht, Director M.S.J. Compound, Almora, to consider the case for regularization of services of daily wagers, work-charge, contract, fixed-pay, part-time and ad-hoc employees working in the University.

7. Thus, from the material brought on record, it is evident that respondent no. 3 has itself constituted a six member committee to accord consideration to the claim of regularization of the services of the contractual employees as well, and which would definitely include the petitioners herein.

8. As the University is yet to take decision, as to whether the services of the petitioners have to be regularized, or not, the