Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines Regularisation of Contractual Teaching Associates; Holds Walk-in Appointments Without Statutory Selection Cannot Be Regularised
Case Name: Davinder Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 13 January 2026
Citation: CWP-36236-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking regularisation of services of contractual Teaching Associates as Assistant Professors. The Court held that appointments made pursuant to walk-in interviews through ad hoc selection committees, without following the mandatory statutory procedure prescribed under the University Act and Statutes, cannot be treated as “irregular” appointments eligible for regularisation. Length of service rendered pursuant to interim court orders does not create any vested right to regularisation.
Summary: The petitioners were appointed between 2010 and 2015 as Teaching Associates on contract basis in various departments of Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar, pursuant to advertisements inviting candidates for walk-in interviews. Their appointments were made on consolidated salary for limited periods and were subject to express conditions that they would not be entitled to regularisation.
Over the years, the petitioners continued in service on the strength of various interim and final orders passed by the High Court in earlier writ petitions, including Komal Dhanda and Vishal Kumar, whereby they were granted minimum of pay scale and protection against replacement by other contractual appointees. Subsequently, when the University initiated regular recruitment through advertisements issued in 2023, the petitioners sought regularisation of their services, which was rejected by a speaking order dated 03 September 2024.
Before the High Court, the petitioners contended that they possessed requisite UGC/AICTE qualifications, had rendered more than ten to fourteen years of service, were discharging duties identical to regular Assistant Professors, and were working against sanctioned posts. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India and a coordinate Bench decision in Nishi v. Panjab University.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing appointments of Assistant Professors under the Guru Jambheshwar University Act, 1995 and the relevant Statutes. It held that regular appointments to teaching posts mandatorily require selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee with external experts and approval of the Executive Council. This mandatory procedure had admittedly not been followed in the case of the petitioners, whose engagement was through ad hoc committees pursuant to restricted walk-in advertisements.
The Court held that such appointments could not even be termed “irregular” in the sense recognised by constitutional jurisprudence, as the broad contours of a fair and open selection process were not followed. The internal administrative order permitting salary to be drawn against vacant posts was held not to establish appointment against sanctioned posts.
The Court further held that continuation in service pursuant to court orders cannot be used as a foundation to claim regularisation, particularly when the petitioners themselves had earlier sought protection only till joining of regular incumbents. The reliance on Jaggo was distinguished on facts, noting that the case related to long-serving part-time workers performing non-specialised essential duties, whereas teaching posts require strict adherence to statutory selection norms. The judgment in Nishi was also held inapplicable due to materially different facts.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The speaking order rejecting the claim for regularisation was upheld. The Court held that the petitioners have no legal right to seek regularisation as Assistant Professors and must compete in the regular selection process initiated by the University.