Contractual employment does not grant inherent rights to regularization; parameters for extension or renewal must be clearly articulated and adhered to.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Petitioners are working as Assistant Professors on contract basis in various Departments in the College of Engineering, Alappuzha under the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), Kochi. They were appointed with effect from various dates since the year 2014. The contracts of the petitioners were extended from time to time.

2. The petitioners state that on 09.08.2023, the Registrar of the University issued Ext.P4 order stating that no employees' contract will be extended beyond four or five years so as to avoid gratuity payment. A notification dated

01.10.2023 was issued for appointment of new faculty members to various positions in the Institute. The petitioners hence filed W.P.(C) No.34727/2023. While so, the respondents again issued a notification dated 06.01.2024 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, as per Ext.P6.

3. W.P.(C) No.34727/2023 filed by the petitioners was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the petitioners do not have the right to continue in the post after the completion of the terms specified in the respective contracts. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 judgment dated 15.10.2024 of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners preferred W.A. No.1664/2024 and connected appeals. Those appeals were dismissed. The petitioners thereupon filed SLP Nos.32180-32182 of 2025 which were also dismissed. The respondents thereafter issued Ext.P9 order dated 01.01.2026 terminating the service of the petitioners.

4. The petitioners state that the impugned termination of the service of the petitioners is a malafide exercise of power. A Division Bench of this Court, referring to the judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826], has held that the Constitution Bench judgment in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] does not authorise penalisation of employees who have rendered long years of service.

5. All the petitioners have put in a good time of their life in serving the University. Most of them have served for more than ten years. All of them were appointed after due selection process. Therefore, they are to be considered for regularisation. Notifying the vacancies for fresh recruitment without considering the petitioners' claim for regularisation is highly arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners seek to declare that they are entitled to be regularised with effect from the date of entry in service in the respective posts.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel for the University.

7. The petitioners had approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.34727/2023 and connected cases challenging fresh recruitment. After considering various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court disposed of the writ petitions with the following directions:-

(i) The petitioners do not have the right to continue in the posts after the completion of the terms specified in the respective contracts entered with the University unless the said term is extended by the University.

(ii) The restrictive clause contained in the notification dated 01.10.2023 that “the candidates who have worked for four years or more on contract appointment in this University will only be considered in the absence of qualified candidates who have not completed four years of appointment on contract basis” is not legally sustainable.

(iii) All the petitioners will have the right to participate in the selection process notified as per the Notification dated 1.10.2023 or any other notifications irrespective of the length of service they have already completed under contract employment with the University.