IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : February 03, 2026 SUKHJANT KAUR .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.

****

DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J. (Oral)

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.01.2019 (Annexure P-5) vide which the claim of the petitioner with regard to the appointment to the post of Guest Faculty Lecturer (Physics) has been rejected ignoring the fact that the petitioner was working on the said post since 2014.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 14.07.2014 (Annexure P-1) advertising two posts of Guest Faculty Lecturer (Physics). In pursuance to the abovesaid advertisement, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Guest Faculty Lecturer (Physics). The petitioner was duly selected and appointed on the abovesaid post and joined the post in the month of July, 2014. The petitioner was relieved from services in the month of March 2015. Thereafter the petitioner was again appointed in the month of August 2015. Respondent No.2 again issued an advertisement dated 04.01.2016 (Annexure P-2) advertising the same post on which the petitioner was working. In pursuance to the abovesaid advertisement, the petitioner applied for consideration for appointment to the abovesaid post on 12.01.2016. However, aggrieved against the abovesaid advertisement, the petitioner also filed a Civil Writ Petition No.1112 of 2016 in this Court. This Court was pleased to pass an interim order and on the basis of the interim order, the petitioner continued in service. It transpires that respondent No.2 again issued an advertisement on 22.07.2018 (Annexure P-3) advertising the same post, on which the petitioner was working during the pendency of the abovesaid writ petition. The writ petition No.1112 of 2016 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 27.07.2018 (Annexure P-4) with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner provisionally and in case, the competent authority reached to the conclusion that the petitioner is not eligible for consideration, a speaking order be passed in the matter. The petitioner was relieved from service on 27.07.2018. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court dated 27.07.2018 (Annexure P-4), the respondents passed a speaking order dated 19.01.2019 (Annexure P-5). A perusal of the same would show that the petitioner has not been held eligible for appointment to the post in question on the ground that she does not have the mandatory qualification required of NET, which is a pre-condition for appointment as per the UGC regulations.

3. Aggrieved against the abovesaid order dated 19.01.2019 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that as the petitioner was appointed on the post of Guest Faculty Lecturer (Physics) in the year 2014, and as such the said post could not have been advertised and she could not be replaced by the same set of employees.

5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was relieved from service on the ground that she did not have the requisite mandatory qualification of NET, as per the UGC regulations for the purpose of appointment on the post of Guest Faculty Lecturer (Physics). The learned State counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner was duly considered in terms of the order passed by this Court on 27.07.2018 (Annexure P-4), however, as the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification as per the UGC regulations, the petitioner was held not eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Guest Faculty Lecturer (Physics) in pursuance to the advertisement dated 22.07.2018 (Annexure P-4).

6. After