Exchequer Siphoned Off For Subsidies: Punjab & Haryana High Court Flags Growing Practice Of Contractual Employment
The High Court reiterated that the Apex Court’s decision in Uma Devi (supra) cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the employer undertaking a legitimate recruitment process to deny relief of regularisation.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court, while directing the regularisation of two Assistant Professors who had been serving on a contractual basis, observed that contractual engagement has become a routine practice while sanctioned posts continue to be filled temporarily.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the recruitment process initiated through a fresh advertisement, as the posts advertised included the posts held by the petitioners. The petitioners also sought regularisation.
A Bench comprising Justice Jagmohan Bansal, while deprecating the practice of contractual employment, remarked: “The States/U.T. have made hay from the findings of the Constitution Bench. They have started making appointment on contract/ad-hoc/temporary/part time basis in every department including education which is a character and nation building department.”
The Bench emphatically stressed that “the exchequer is siphoned off for subsidies instead of appointing regular employees and paying a regular pay scale.”
Advocate Sarthak Gupta represented the petitioner, while Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab, represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioners were engaged as Assistant Professors pursuant to a public advertisement. They participated in interviews, were found suitable, and joined on a contractual basis. Their engagement was extended at the beginning of every academic session.
They asserted that they possessed the qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission, were appointed against sanctioned posts meant for direct recruitment, and had completed more than ten uninterrupted years of service.
They contended that the fresh recruitment process issued through the impugned advertisement sought to fill the same posts on which they were working, and therefore, their regularisation should be ordered.
The respondents argued that the petitioners were appointed as contractual employees, accepted the terms voluntarily, and could not claim regularisation as a matter of right. They submitted that reliance on judgments involving daily wage or irregular appointments was misplaced.
Court’s Observation
The Punjab & Haryana High Court, while examining whether the petitioners could be regularised without violating the principles laid down in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, clarified that Uma Devi does not prohibit a public employer from regularising those who have been appointed after issuing an advertisement and following the due procedure of selection.
The Bench referred to the judgment in Jaggo v. State of Haryana, and noted that the case of the petitioners was similar. In Jaggo Devi, the Constitutional Bench had held that “no employee can be kept temporary for an indefinite period” and that “an employee has right to be considered for regularization”.
The Court further observed that contractual engagements have increasingly become routine instead of exceptional. Frowning upon the practice, the Bench remarked: “The Supreme Court, in case of exigencies, had permitted to make appointment on contract basis and did not permit States and its agencies to make it a routine practice. The Court had emphasized to make appointments in public employment after following procedure prescribed for regular recruitment and in accordance with mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
The Bench recorded that the use of contractual engagements in teaching institutions resulted in exploitation and diversion of public funds while regular recruitment was avoided. While making these observations, the Bench stated that the State, “being a model employer, neither can exploit its citizens nor take advantage of mass unemployment”
Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners were appointed after advertisement, were interviewed, and served continuously on a full-time basis. It recorded that they were paid a regular pay scale and satisfied the eligibility norms prescribed by the regulatory authority.
The Court noted that there was no allegation of misconduct, no disciplinary inquiry, and no complaint against the petitioners. It held that after continuous service of more than ten years, they could not be treated as casual appointees.
Conclusion
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court directed the regularisation of the petitioners and held that if an order is not issued within six weeks, they shall be deemed to be regularised and entitled to seniority and regular pay scale from the expiry of that period.
The Court permitted the respondents to proceed with recruitment for other posts covered under the advertisement and directed that similarly situated teachers serving for more than ten years may be considered in light of this judgment. The petition was disposed of.
Cause Title: Nishi and Another v. Panjab University and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:152943)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocate Sarthak Gupta
Respondents: Advocates Subhash Ahuja, Aman Dhir, DAG
