Regularization of service cannot be granted to ad hoc or guest faculty employees who were appointed without a public advertisement or interview and do not meet the specific eligibility criteria set by the state's regularization policy.

Judgment On Board

1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take steps to regularize the petitioner in the post of trainer (COPA Trade) and further direct to grant consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.

10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.

2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as Guest Faculty (Training Officer) under respondent department on 20.11.2009 where he has continuously worked for 22 years and posts are lying vacant but claim of petitioner for regularization has not been considered. He further submits that petitioner preferred WPS/5432/2021 which was disposed vide order dated 7.10.2021 whereby respondents were directed to consider the claim of petitioner. He contends that petitioner made a representation and same was rejected vide order dated 7.12.2021 on the ground that petitioner was working as Guest Faculty under respondents therefore he is not entitled for regularization. He further contends that according to circular issued by the State Government dated 5.3.2008, respondents are under obligation to consider the name of petitioner for regularization. He prays a direction to respondent authorities to regularize the petitioner.

3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was working as Guest Faculty and his claim for regularization is not covered with the circular dated 5.3.2008 and he cannot be permitted to take refuge of the said circular.

4) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5) Admittedly, order dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P/1) would reveal that petitioner was engaged as Guest Faculty. It appears that petitioner was not appointed against any sanctioned and vacant posted pursuant to any advertisement issued by the department whereas according to circular dated 5.3.2008, claim of daily rated employees/ contingency paid employees who were appointed prior to year 1988 or between years 1989 to 1997 can be considered for regularization.

6) Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madan Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 1. 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 390 struck down the Notifications issued by the State of Haryana dated 07.07.2014 whereby a policy decision was taken to regularize the services of Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down said Notification on the ground that the State of Haryana failed to justify reasons for regularization of services of ad hoc employees, who had not been engaged on the basis of advertisement or any interview. Relevant para 21 is reproduced herein below :

“21. On 07.07.2014, the General Administration Department of the State Government came up with a policy decision to regularise the services of Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees. This policy, however, was slightly distinct from the earlier Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014. Significantly, what was provided for was that the services of ad hoc employees, who had or were to complete ten years of service at the future date of 31.12.2018 were to be regularised even if his/her original appointment was not made through the process of advertisement and interview. The criteria prescrib