* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 7^th January, 2026.

Pronounced on: 10^th March, 2026.

Uploaded on: 10^th March, 2026.

+ W.P.(C) 10830/2020, CM APPL. 33969/2020, CM APPL.

74004/2025 MOHD ANSARI AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Puneet Rathi and Mr. Md.

Shahrukh Qureshi, Advocates.

Versus DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY .....Respondent Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for GNCTD with Mr. N.K. Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. This writ petition, instituted by contractual employees of Delhi Technological University¹, invite adjudication on a question that frequently recurs in public employment: whether persons engaged through a public- facing selection process and continued for years together against work of a perennial character can be kept indefinitely on contractual terms, or whether the Constitution’s guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 require the employer to bring such engagements to a lawful closure by regularising eligible incumbents in accordance with the settled principles. The Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the University to treat them as regular incumbents or, in the alternative, to consider and effect their regularisation with reference to their length of service. The University resists the claim, invoking the discipline of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors v. Umadevi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1. and asserting that contractual engagement, however long continued, confers no right to absorption and cannot be converted into a mode of recruitment.

2. The University commenced recruitment for various administrative, ministerial and technical posts from July 2010 onwards. The process was initiated through advertisements issued through the Directorate of Information and Publicity, Government of NCT of Delhi. The Petitioners applied pursuant to those advertisements and participated in the selection process.

3. The Petitioners state that the University conducted screening, written or skill tests wherever prescribed, and interviews through duly constituted Selection Committees. On that basis, the competent authority issued appointment letters to the Petitioners across various posts.

4. The appointments were described as contractual. A substantial number of appointments were made on 13^th August, 2010, followed by subsequent batches on 28^th December, 2010, 29^th July, 2011 and 12^th August, 2011, and the Petitioners joined service in terms thereof. The Petitioners occupy posts such as Junior Office Assistant, Office Assistant, Senior Office Assistant, PS to the Vice-Chancellor, Stenographer, Assistant Store Keeper, 1 “University”

Driver, Technical Assistant, and various mechanic and technical cadres.

5. It is common ground that the Petitioners continued with the University for several years on the strength of periodic extensions of their contractual engagements. The Petitioners served under the administrative control of the University and discharged duties assigned to them from time to time.

6. The record also indicates that the University examined the position of contractual employees on more than one occasion. Committees were constituted at different points to consider service conditions, including questions relating to regularisation. The Petitioners also rely on certain service benefits, which were extended to contractual employees, including coverage under the EPF Scheme.

7. The Petitioners contend that despite long, continuous service following an open recruitment process, their services were never regularised.

They therefore invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Petitioner’s Contentions:

8. Mr. Puneet Rathi, counsel for the Petitioners, advances the following submissions in support of the petition:

8.1. The Petitioners were appointed pursuant to open advertisements issued by the University, against sanctioned regular posts, after undergoing a duly prescribed selection process comprising screening, writte