12-Year Contractual Service Against Sanctioned Posts Merits Regularization: Punjab and Haryana High Court - 2025-11-06

Breaking the Cycle of Precarity: High Court Mandates Regularization for Long-Serving Academic Staff

In a landmark decision that provides relief to thousands of long-serving ad-hoc staff across state institutions, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has ruled that contractual employees who were appointed through a transparent selection process and have served for over a decade against sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Jagmohan Bansal, effectively draws a stark line between "illegal backdoor entries" and "irregular appointments" that have persisted due to institutional inaction.

A Decade of Uncertainty: The Case Background

The petitioners, Nishi and another, were hired by Panjab University as Assistant Professors in 2012 following an open advertisement and a formal interview process. Despite possessing all UGC-mandated qualifications and working continuously for over 12 years against sanctioned posts, the university repeatedly placed them on yearly contracts. When the University recently issued a new advertisement (No. 1/2025) to fill these same posts, the petitioners approached the High Court, challenging the move and seeking regularization.

The Clash of Legal Precedents

The university relied heavily on the landmark Umadevi (3) ruling, arguing that as contractual employees, the petitioners accepted the terms of their engagement and had no "vested right" to permanent status. They contended that regularization would violate constitutional schemes.

Conversely, the petitioners' counsel argued that the Umadevi decision was intended to curb illegal backdoor entries, not to punish qualified professionals who have served the institution faithfully for over a decade. They invoked recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, including Jaggo vs. Union of India (2024) , which emphasizes that long, unblemished service in sanctioned roles should be treated with fairness rather than exploited through perpetual temporary contracts.

The Court’s Reasoning: Distinguishing 'Irregular' from 'Illegal'

Justice Jagmohan Bansal’s analysis pivoted on the nature of the recruitment process. The Court noted that since the petitioners were selected through a formal, open-competitive process and were fully qualified, their appointments were not "backdoor entries."

"The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts... reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security," the Court observed. It held that the state cannot use the Supreme Court’s rulings—intended to protect the constitutional scheme of hiring—as a shield to justify the exploitation of its own workforce.

Key Observations

The judgment is marked by strong reproof of the state’s employment practices:

• On the Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: "Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as 'temporary' or 'contractual,' even when their roles mirror those of regular employees."
• On Misinterpretation of Case Law: "The judgment [Umadevi] aimed to distinguish between 'illegal' and 'irregular' appointments… It is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees."
• On the State as an Employer: "The State being a model employer neither can exploit its citizen nor take advantage of mass unemployment... It cannot keep hanging sword of termination."

The Road Ahead: A Call for Institutional Fairness

The High Court has directed Panjab University to regularize the petitioners within six weeks. If the deadline passes without compliance, the petitioners shall be deemed regularized, entitled to the associated seniority and pay scales.

This verdict serves as a significant rebuke to the "gig-ification" of academic appointments. For Universities and public institutions, the message is clear: when a candidate meets all criteria and serves the nation's educational needs for over a decade, procedural formalities cannot be weaponized to indefinitely deny the dignity of permanent employment. The Court further suggested that the University consider the plight of other long-serving contractual teachers to prevent further litigation, signaling a potential shift in how public institutions manage their workforce.