W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 1 of 15

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 7

th

January, 2026.

Pronounced on: 10

th

March, 2026.

Uploaded on: 10

th

March, 2026.

+ W.P.(C) 10830/2020, CM APPL. 33969/2020, CM APPL.

74004/2025

MOHD ANSARI AND ORS .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Puneet Rathi and Mr. Md.

Shahrukh Qureshi, Advocates.

Versus

DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY .....Respondent

Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for

GNCTD with Mr. N.K. Singh,

Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish

Sehrawat, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. This writ petition, instituted by contractual employees of Delhi

Technological University

1

, invite adjudication on a question that frequently

recurs in public employment: whether persons engaged through a public-

facing selection process and continued for years together against work of a

perennial character can be kept indefinitely on contractual terms, or whether

the Constitution’s guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 require the employer

to bring such engagements to a lawful closure by regularising eligible

W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 2 of 15

incumbents in accordance with the settled principles. The Petitioners seek a

writ of mandamus directing the University to treat them as regular

incumbents or, in the alternative, to consider and effect their regularisation

with reference to their length of service. The University resists the claim,

invoking the discipline of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors v. Umadevi

(3) & Ors.

2

and asserting that contractual engagement, however long

continued, confers no right to absorption and cannot be converted into a

mode of recruitment.

2. The University commenced recruitment for various administrative,

ministerial and technical posts from July 2010 onwards. The process was

initiated through advertisements issued through the Directorate of

Information and Publicity, Government of NCT of Delhi. The Petitioners

applied pursuant to those advertisements and participated in the selection

process.

3. The Petitioners state that the University conducted screening, written

or skill tests wherever prescribed, and interviews through duly constituted

Selection Committees. On that basis, the competent authority issued

appointment letters to the Petitioners across various posts.

4. The appointments were described as contractual. A substantial

number of appointments were made on 13

th

August, 2010, followed by

subsequent batches on 28

th

December, 2010, 29

th

July, 2011 and 12

th

August,

2011, and the Petitioners joined service in terms thereof. The Petitioners

occupy posts such as Junior Office Assistant, Office Assistant, Senior Office

Assistant, PS to the Vice-Chancellor, Stenographer, Assistant Store Keeper,

1

“University”

2

(2006) 4 SCC 1.

W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 3 of 15

Driver, Technical Assistant, and various mechanic and technical cadres.

5. It is common ground that the Petitioners continued with the

University for several years on the strength of periodic extensions of their

contractual engagements. The Petitioners served under the administrative

control of the University and discharged duties assigned to them from time

to time.

6. The record also indicates that the University examined the position of

contractual employees on more than one occasion. Committees were

constituted at different points to consider service conditions, including

questions relating to regularisation. The Petitioners also rely on certain

service benefits, which were extended to contractual employees, including

coverage under the EPF Scheme.

7. The Petitioners contend that despite long, continuous service

following an open recruitment process, their services were never regularised.

They therefore invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Petitioner’s Contentions:

8. Mr. Puneet Rathi, counsel for the Petitioners, advances the following

submissions in support of the petition:

8.1. The Petitioners were appointed pursuant to open advertisements

issued by the University, against sanctioned regular posts, after undergoing a

duly prescribed selection process comprising screening, written/skill tests

and interviews conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The

appointments were approved by the Board of Management, which is the

competent authority not only to make regular appointments but also to frame

recruitment rules for the posts concerned.

8.2. The Petitioners, though appointed on a contractual basis, initially for a

W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 4 of 15

period of one year, were appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their

contracts were extended repeatedly on the basis of satisfactory performance,

resulting in uninterrupted service spanning nearly fifteen years.

8.3. The selection and appointment of the Petitioners satisfied all essential

attributes of a regular recruitment process, including prescription of

eligibility conditions, availability of vacancies, open advertisement, and

selection by a competent authority. Their appointments, therefore, cannot be

termed illegal and, at best, could be regarded as irregular.

8.4. During the tenure of their engagement, the Petitioners have

discharged duties identical to those performed by regular employees and

have been treated at par with them in several respects, including grant of

salary (basic pay), HRA, TA, DA and coverage under the EPF Scheme. This

conduct of the University itself demonstrates that the Petitioners were

treated as part of the regular workforce.

8.5. The terms of appointment prohibited the Petitioners from accepting

any other employment during the subsistence of their contracts, thereby

placing them in a position analogous to that of regular employees and

reinforcing the legitimate expectation of continuity and regularisation.

8.6. Emphasis is laid on the fact that the Petitioners have rendered long,

uninterrupted and blemish-free service for nearly fifteen years, performing

perennial and essential functions of the University. There has been no

complaint regarding their conduct or performance at any point of time, and

their continued extensions reflect the enduring need for their services.

8.7. Reliance is placed on a catena of recent judgments of the Supreme

W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 5 of 15

Court, including Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

3

, Jaggo v.

Union of India & Ors.

4

, Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad

5

and

Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.

6

, wherein, in gist, it has been

held that long, continuous and unblemished service following a recruitment

process that is not “illegal” cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground

that the initial appointment was contractual.

8.8. Umadevi does not preclude regularisation in cases such as the present

one. The decision was intended to curb “back-door” and “illegal”

appointments, and not to penalise employees appointed through a

transparent process who have served for long years against sanctioned posts

8.9. Compelling the Petitioners to participate in a fresh regular recruitment

process at this stage would be arbitrary and inequitable, as it would place

them at a severe disadvantage vis-à-vis fresh entrants and would effectively

defeat the rights recognised by the Supreme Court.

8.10. Reliance is placed on Pawan Sharma & Ors. v. State of NCT of

Delhi & Ors.

7

, wherein this Court held that employees who have earned a

right to regularisation by virtue of their initial appointment and long,

uninterrupted, blemish-free service cannot be compelled to undergo a fresh

recruitment process, and that the law declared by the Supreme Court is

binding under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution.

Respondent’s Contentions:

9. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC (GNCTD) appearing for the University,

opposes the petition and makes the following submissions:

3

(2024) 9 SCC 327.

4

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826.

5

2025 SCC OnLine SC 221.

6

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735.

W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 6 of 15

9.1. The law governing regularisation of contractual, ad-hoc or temporary

employees stands authoritatively settled in Umadevi, which mandates strict

adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and prohibits

regularisation as a mode of public employment.

9.2. The Petitioners were admittedly appointed on a purely contractual

basis through walk-in interviews, pending formulation of Recruitment Rules

and regular selection. Their engagement was for a fixed tenure of one year

or till regular appointments were made, whichever was earlier, with an

express stipulation that no right to regularisation would accrue.

9.3. The selection process adopted for engaging the Petitioners did not

conform to the constitutional scheme of public employment. There was no

all-India advertisement, no competitive examination, and no duly constituted

Selection Committee as per any Recruitment Rules. Consequently, the

appointments were de hors rules and cannot even be treated as “irregular”

so as to attract the limited exception carved out in paragraph 53 of Umadevi.

9.4. Merely because the Petitioners continued in service for a long

duration on the strength of successive contractual extensions, no right to

regularisation accrues in their favour. The Supreme Court in National

Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. v. Somvir Singh

8

categorically held that length of

service, by itself, does not confer any enforceable right, and that

appointments made in violation of the constitutional scheme or recruitment

rules cannot be validated on the ground of long continuance. Further, in

Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors.

9

the Supreme Court authoritatively

ruled that the law declared in Umadevi is binding under Article 141 and

7

2025 SCC OnLine Del 8313.

8

(2006) 5 SCC 493.

W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 7 of 15

cannot be diluted by equitable considerations or by subsequent continuance

of contractual or temporary employees. Any claim for regularisation

founded solely on long service, therefore, is legally untenable.

9.5. The plea of legitimate expectation is wholly misconceived. The terms

of appointment clearly indicated the temporary and contractual nature of

engagement. In fact, the Petitioners were required, as a condition of

appointment, to furnish a specific undertaking that they would not seek

regularisation of their services. Having accepted such terms with open eyes

and continued in service on that basis, the Petitioners are estopped from

asserting any claim contrary thereto. In any event, the State or its

instrumentalities cannot hold out any promise of regularisation in derogation

of Articles 14 and 16.

9.6. The University, after its establishment in 2009, initiated regular

recruitment processes in 2018-19. Some of the Petitioners participated in the

said regular selection along with other eligible candidates on an all-India

basis but failed to secure selection. Having failed in the regular recruitment

process, they cannot claim continuation or regularisation as a matter of right.

9.7. The fact that one contractual employee succeeded in the regular

selection and was appointed on a regular basis itself demonstrates that the

recruitment process was fair and open, and that the Petitioners were afforded

equal opportunity in compliance with Articles 14 and 16.

9.8. Reliance on Vinod Kumar and Jaggo is misplaced. Those judgments

turned on their own peculiar facts involving clear discrimination and long

years of service akin to regular employment, and do not dilute or overrule

the binding ratio of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi. In Jaggo, the

9

(2008) 10 SCC 1.

W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 8 of 15

Supreme Court was concerned with Group ‘D’ employees performing

menial and perennial functions where educational qualifications were never

central to engagement, whereas in Vinod Kumar, the employees had been

treated throughout as part of the regular cadre, including conduction of

promotion process through Departmental Promotion Committees.

9.9. Based on a consistent line of authorities, including State of

Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors.

10

, State of Orissa & Anr. v.

Mamata Mohanty

11

, State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. District Bar

Association, Bandipora

12

, regularisation is neither a source of recruitment

nor a mechanism to validate appointments made in violation of the

constitutional scheme.

9.10. The fresh recruitment initiated vide Advertisement No. 03/2025 dated

06

th

November, 2025, seeks to fill 66 posts through direct recruitment in

accordance with law. The Petitioners, having no vested or accrued right,

cannot seek to stall the regular recruitment process, which is constitutionally

mandated. At best, the Petitioners’ right is limited to participation in regular

selection with such age relaxation or concessions as may be permissible

under law; however, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing their

regularisation or continuation.

Analysis:

10. The dispute must be approached with clarity about first principles.

Regularisation is not a parallel mode of entry into public service. Articles 14

and 16 insist on an open and fair access. The Constitution Bench in

Umadevi was directed against clandestine entry, patronage-based

10

(2010) 9 SCC 247.

11

(2011) 3 SCC 436.

W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 9 of 15

appointments, and judicially directed absorption of persons who never came

through an open process.

11. At the same time, recent decisions have cautioned courts against a

mechanical application of Umadevi to perpetuate prolonged ad hocism. The

Supreme Court, in Vinod Kumar, has clarified that the essence of

employment and the rights flowing therefrom cannot be determined solely

by the initial terms or label of appointment where the actual course of

employment has evolved significantly over time. Where continuous service

in posts performing perennial functions has, in substance, assumed the

character of regular employment, the initial nomenclature cannot be invoked

as a permanent basis to deny substantive rights that accrue through long and

sustained service.

12. The present case turns on a well-recognised factual and legal

distinction in this line of jurisprudence. The question is whether the

Petitioners’ appointments were “illegal” or “back-door” in the sense

explained in Umadevi, that is, back-door or surreptitious appointments made

in patent breach of minimum qualifications or the constitutional scheme, or

whether they were appointments made through a public and transparent

process, against continuing institutional requirements, and described as

“contractual” only because the University had not, at that time, completed

its internal regular recruitment framework.

13. On the record as set out, the Petitioners’ entry into service was neither

clandestine nor constitutionally tainted. The University issued public

advertisements from July 2010 onwards; eligibility conditions were

prescribed; and selection processes, including skill or written tests where

12

(2017) 3 SCC 410.

W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 10 of 15

required, were undertaken. The appointment letters record recommendation

by a duly constituted Selection Committee and approval by the Vice-

Chancellor. The engagements were thereafter continued for years, without

allegation of misconduct or incompetence. These features place the present

case squarely outside the category of “illegal” or “back-door” appointments

contemplated in Umadevi and align it with the distinction recognised in

Vinod Kumar.

14. The Respondent’s principal defence rests on three planks: the

contractual label and disclaimers, the absence of Recruitment Rules at the

time of recruitment, and the submission that some Petitioners failed in later

regular recruitment process.

15. None of these defences, in isolation, is dispositive in view of the

subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court. First, contractual

disclaimers and undertakings not to seek regularisation do not conclude the

constitutional inquiry. In Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand

13

, decided after

the conclusion of arguments in the present case, the Supreme Court

expressly disapproved a mechanical reliance on contractual stipulations to

defeat scrutiny. It held that contractual clauses barring claims for

regularisation cannot override the guarantee of equality under Article 14, nor

can acceptance of such terms be construed as a waiver of fundamental

rights. Emphasising the State’s obligation to act as a model employer, the

Court observed that the State cannot take advantage of the unequal

bargaining position of employees by continuing them for years on

sanctioned posts under a contractual label and thereafter deny consideration

for regularisation solely on that basis. The mere nomenclature of

W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 11 of 15

engagement, or disclaimers contained in appointment letters, cannot

immunise arbitrary State action from constitutional review.

16. Second, the absence of Recruitment Rules at the time of initial

engagement cannot be turned into a sword against employees if the

employer itself allowed the situation to persist for years, while extracting

full-time work of a perennial character. Where rules are absent, the relevant

question is whether the process adopted was public-facing, transparent, and

non-arbitrary, and whether the engagement thereafter assumed the

characteristics of regular institutional employment. In the present case, it is

not merely the length of service that is significant, but the manner in which

the University treated the Petitioners during that tenure. The Petitioners

assert that they discharged duties akin to those performed by regular

employees. While the Respondent contests the legal consequences of their

engagement, it has not specifically denied that the Petitioners were extended

components of the regular pay structure, including HRA, TA and DA, and

were placed under full administrative control with restrictions on outside

employment. The extension of such allowances and service conditions over

a period indicates that the engagement was not treated as casual or project-

bound, but as part of the University’s continuing establishment

requirements. If the employer chose to recruit through public advertisement

and selection committees, and thereafter sustained the relationship in this

manner for over a decade, it cannot later characterise the same engagement

as constitutionally infirm solely because it continued to describe it as

“contractual”.

17. Third, participation or non-participation in a later regular recruitment

13

2026 SCC OnLine SC 129.

W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 12 of 15

exercise does not, by itself, extinguish a claim that has matured through long

and continuous service pursuant to a non-illegal entry. The Division Bench

of this Court, in Pawan Sharma & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi

14

,

held that Courts must look beyond the surface label of appointment and

examine the reality of employment, namely, continuous, blemish-free

service in posts performing perennial and integral functions of the

establishment. Once such service reflects a regular and continuing

institutional requirement, the claim cannot be defeated by requiring the

employees to undergo a later recruitment process as though their past service

were of no legal consequence. A subsequent recruitment notification, by

itself, cannot furnish a complete answer to the arbitrariness inherent in

prolonged contractual engagement.

18. What ultimately matters is the character of the relationship that the

University itself sustained. When an institution engages persons through a

process resembling regular recruitment, places them under full

administrative control, restricts outside employment, assigns them work

essential to the institution, and then continues them year after year for a

decade and more, the arrangement stops looking like a stop-gap and starts

looking like a parallel cadre. The Supreme Court in Jaggo treats this

phenomenon as a misuse of the “temporary” label and holds that courts must

look to the reality of service, not the nomenclature.

19. Applying these principles, the Petitioners’ case crosses the crucial

threshold. Their entry is not shown to be “illegal”, “back-door” or tainted

with mala fide. Their service is long, continuous, and blemish-free. The

posts are not project-bound. They are core administrative, ministerial, and

14

W.P.(C) 2117/2025 & other connected matters.

W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 13 of 15

technical functions of a University. The repeated extensions, over nearly

fifteen years, demonstrate continuing institutional need.

20. In these circumstances, continued refusal to regularise is not a neutral

insistence on constitutional recruitment. It becomes an arbitrary insistence

on form that permits the employer to benefit from its own prolonged default

in organising public employment on regular lines. That outcome is

incompatible with Article 14.

21. The University has contested the availability of sanctioned posts in

the cadres concerned and submits that, in the absence of sanctioned

vacancies, no direction for regularisation can be issued. This contention

cannot be brushed aside; however, it cannot conclude the matter either. The

Division Bench of this Court in Pawan Sharma, after analysing the recent

decisions of the Supreme Cout beginning from Vinod Kumar right up until

Dharam Singh, has clarified that where employees have entered service

through a process which was not unlawful, and have rendered long,

continuous and unblemished service in posts performing perennial functions,

the right to consideration for regularisation does not evaporate merely

because the posts were not shown to be sanctioned at the time of

engagement. While the existence of sanctioned strength may assume

relevance in moulding relief, the absence of clear material regarding such

strength cannot, by itself, justify indefinite continuation of a parallel

contractual establishment performing regular institutional work. The real

question, therefore, is whether the institutional requirement exists and

whether the State instrumentality has organised that requirement on a lawful

footing. It is in this backdrop that the directions which follow are required to

be issued.

W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 14 of 15

22. Relief must therefore be structured in a manner that respects the

constitutional discipline emphasised in Umadevi, while also ensuring that

the State instrumentality does not perpetuate a parallel contractual

establishment in respect of work that is perennial and integral to its

functioning. The absence of clear material regarding sanctioned strength,

particularly when such strength is within the exclusive domain of the

employer, cannot be permitted to operate as a self-serving defence to

indefinitely postpone regularisation.

23. Accordingly, the University is directed to undertake, within a period

of eight weeks from today, a structured review of its sanctioned strength and

existing vacancies in the cadres presently occupied by the Petitioners. For

this purpose, a Committee comprising senior administrative and finance

officers, and where necessary a nominee of the competent sanctioning

authority, shall be constituted to assess the existing sanctioned strength and

vacancies, if any, in the relevant cadres; and where institutional requirement

exists but sanctioned posts are found deficient, take expeditious steps, in

accordance with law, to seek approval for creation or augmentation of posts

commensurate with such requirement.

24. Upon completion of the above exercise, and subject to verification of

the Petitioners’ appointments, the University shall consider regularisation of

the services of eligible Petitioners, in accordance with the applicable rules

and statutory norms, against available or duly created posts, with effect from

the date of completion of the said exercise. This process shall be completed

within a period of six months from today.

25. Until the aforesaid exercise is concluded, the Petitioners shall not be

displaced by outsourcing or fresh contractual engagement in respect of the

W.P.(C) 10830/2020 Page 15 of 15

functions presently discharged by them.

26. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending

applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J

MARCH 10, 2026/ab