Umadevi Is Not A Blanket Barrier Against Regularisation Of Decades-Long Contractual Staff: Delhi High Court Directs DTU To Create Supernumerary Posts
The Bench ruled that the initial walk-in contractual engagements without formal statutory rules are "irregular" rather than "illegal," mandating Delhi Technological University to consider staff regularisation or create supernumerary posts.
The Delhi High Court has modified a Single Judge judgment in a set of cross-appeals filed by Delhi Technological University (DTU) and its contractual staff. The Court directed DTU to regularise employees appointed in 2010–2011 against available regular vacancies or, in their absence, by creating personal supernumerary posts that will lapse upon the employees' superannuation.
The Bench noted that long, continuous, and unblemished service performing perennial functions transforms temporary roles into a substantive claim for fair regularisation. The Court rejected DTU's plea that procedural initial defects permanently bar regularisation under State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, holding that Umadevi targets clandestine "backdoor" entries rather than public walk-in selections conducted before statutory rules were framed.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia while referring to Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 909 observed, “…the mere form of engagement of employees cannot be used to deny fair and equitable treatment to the employees who have served for long years…Umadevi (supra), cannot be invoked as a blanket barrier to justify prolonged and continued engagements of a temporary or ad-hoc nature, especially where the employees have been discharging essential and recurring functions of the State…”.
Senior Advocate Rashmi Chopra appeared for the appellant and Anil Kaushik, Additional Solicitor General appeared for the respondent.
The employee-appellants were recruited in 2010 and 2011 across non-teaching posts, including Office Assistants, Technical Assistants, Drivers, and Assistant Librarians, following walk-in interview advertisements published in Delhi newspapers.
At the time, DTU had not yet framed formal recruitment rules. The workers rendered uninterrupted service for over 15 years without adverse performance records and were previously granted equal pay allowances at par with regular staff under prior court orders.
The employees filed a writ petition seeking regularisation, which a Single Judge allowed on March 10, 2026. The Single Judge directed DTU to conduct a structured review of its sanctioned strength and seek approval to create additional posts.
Aggrieved by the conditional nature of the relief, the employees appealed, seeking direct regularisation. DTU simultaneously filed an appeal, claiming that the workers were illegally appointed without statutory rules and that courts lack the authority to order post creation.
The Court observed that because the initial engagements were conducted via public newspaper advertisements and selection processes before regular recruitment rules existed, the appointments were merely "irregular" and not "illegal" or "backdoor" entries.
Reaffirming recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Bench held that public institutions acting as model employers cannot exploit temporary labels or hide behind a rigid interpretation of Umadevi to deny equity to long-serving staff performing perennial duties. The Bench concluded that where sanctioned posts are absent, creating supernumerary posts is the appropriate legal mechanism to reconcile regularisation rights with cadre limits.
Cause Title: Om Prakash Gaur and Others v. Delhi Technological University (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6891-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Rashmi Chopra, Senior Advocate, Puneet Rathi and Shahrukh Qureshi, Advocates.
Respondent: Anil Kaushik, Additional Solicitor General, Kanu Agrawal, Mehak Kumar, Pranjal Singh, and Nischal Tripathi, Advocates.