$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 17^th April 2026 + LPA 275/2026 & CM APPL. 25197/2026 SANDEEP SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Mr. Shashank Singh, Mr. G Srinivas Reddy & Mr.

Vinit Raj, Advocates.

versus JAMIA HAMDARD (HAMDARD UNIVERSITY) & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Dr. Swaroop George, Mr.

Mohbashshir Sarwar, Mr. Abhinandan Jain, Mr. Shiavam Prajapati, Mr. Abhigyan Dwivedi & Mr. Takrim Asshan Khan, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 25198/2026

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

LPA 275/2026

1. Heard counsel for appellant, as also counsel for respondent no.1/University.

2. This appeal seeks to take exception to the order dated 10^th April 2026 passed by Single Judge whereby, W.P.(C) No. 4775/2026, instituted by the appellant, has been dismissed and the claim of appellant for treating his appointment with respondent no.1/University to have been made on regular basis against the post of Security Inspector, has not been acceded to.

3. Facts which are relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the issues involved in this appeal, in brief, are as under:

(i) On 3^rd March 2022, an advertisement was issued by respondent no.1/University for appointment on different non-teaching posts on regular/deputation/contractual basis. The post of Security Inspector was also advertised to be filled in and the pay-scale admissible for the said post, as per advertisement, was Rs. 29200-Rs. 92300 at Level V. Appellant made his application pursuant to said advertisement and was accordingly, subjected to the selection process conducted by respondent no.1/University.

(ii) Selection Committee comprised of Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Finance Officer, Chief Proctor and one expert member. On the basis of selection held by the Selection Committee, a merit list was prepared and one, Shri Mohammad Khalild, was placed at serial no.1 in the order of merit and was accordingly recommended by the Selection Committee to be appointed. As per the said selection, appellant was placed at serial no.1 in the waiting list.

(iii) However, it appears that, since the candidate who was placed at serial no.1 in the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee did not join, respondent no.1/University offered appointment to the appellant on contractual basis vide offer letter dated 16^th March, 2023.

(iv) A perusal of the appointment/offer letter dated 16^th March, 2023 clearly shows that the offer for appointment to appellant was made purely on contractual basis on a consolidated salary of Rs.50,000 per month, which was one of the conditions stipulated in the appointment/offer letter.

(v) As per the conditions contained in Clause 6 of the appointment letter, the contractual appointment did not confer any right on the appellant to claim regular appointment to the post in question. Letter of appointment also provided that such appointment shall not count for the purpose of seniority, promotion and retirement benefits, etc. It also stipulated that appointment of appellant was made only for the period of one year, with effect from the date of his joining.

(vi) The appellant unequivocally and without any objection or demur, accepted the terms of offer of appointment communicated to him vide letter dated 16^th March 2023 and accordingly, submitted his joining.

(vii) After completion of period of one year from the date the appellant submitted his joining, his contractual term was extended from time to time.

(viii) At this stage, we may point out that pursuant to the appointment letter, appellant had submitted his joining and upon joining, the joining notification was also issued by Assistant Registrar of respondent no.1/University on 25^th May 2023. Even in the said joining notification dated 25^th May 2023, it is clearly stated that appellant had joined his duties as Security Inspector on contractual b