$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6077/2018, CM APPL. 23505/2018, CM APPL. 47567/2018 & CM APPL. 56751/2024 NARENDRA KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Parmil Kumar, Advocate.

versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ) AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Mr. Harsh Kumar Pandey, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Mr. Arpit Srivastava, Advocates for R-

2/GGSIPU.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 19.01.2026

1. The petitioner was engaged by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi on 17^th April, 2007 as a Junior Data Entry Operator on a short-term contractual basis for three months on a consolidated remuneration of INR 5,200/- per month. The engagement has continued, with renewals, for almost two decades. The writ petition challenges the rejection of the Petitioner’s request for regularisation communicated through the speaking order dated 26^th March, 2018, which was passed pursuant to the directions issued earlier in W.P.(C) 1264/2018 on 12^th February, 2018.

2. The Petitioner principally places reliance on Resolution No. 43.28 of the 43^rd Meeting of the Board of Management held on 6^th August, 2010. The resolution records that contractual employees who had completed at least eight years of contractual service could be considered for regularisation, subject to adherence to the Recruitment Rules for the relevant post. The Petitioner also relies on Resolution No. 53.27 of the 53^rd Meeting held on 15^th March, 2013, which reiterated that contractual employees could be considered for regularisation if they satisfied the Recruitment Rules “at the time of their joining”, with age relaxation alone being approved on sympathetic considerations. The Petitioner asserts that similarly placed employees have received the benefit of this policy, but he has been excluded without a principled basis.

3. The Respondents, while not disputing the contractual origin of the engagement, submit that no vested right to regularisation inheres in a contractual employee. They contend that, at the highest, the Petitioner could seek consideration, which was undertaken by a duly constituted committee. The request was rejected in view of Resolution No. 62.09 of the 62^nd Meeting of the Board of Management held on 15^th March, 2016, where the Board observed that after completing the cases referred to under Agenda Item No. 43.28, “no case of regularisation should be done” and the regularisations made under that resolution should not be cited as precedent. The respondents also rely on the distinction between Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’, asserting that the regularisations effected were confined to Group ‘D’ (Multi-Tasking staff) and no Group ‘C’ contractual employee has been regularised.

4. The Court has considered the aforenoted submissions. The legal position on regularisation is settled. Regularisation is not a mode of recruitment, and courts do not ordinarily direct absorption of contractual, daily-wage, or temporary appointees into regular service, as that would bypass the constitutional requirements of equal opportunity in public employment. The narrow window recognised after Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1. is fact-sensitive and operates within strict limits. It does not convert prolonged continuance into an enforceable right, and it does not dispense with foundational requirements such as sanctioned posts and appointments that are, at the least, “irregular” rather than illegal.

5. At the same time, when a public authority itself frames a policy framework for consideration of a defined class of contractual employees, and the record shows that the authority has acted upon that framework in certain cases, the decision-making process must still meet the baseline requirements of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and reasoned consideration.

6. The impugned order dated 26^th March, 2018, passed by the Respondent University, was rendered pursuant to directions issued by this Cour