Manoj Kumar vs 2. Cwp No. 612 Of 2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 8329 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Manoj Kumar vs 2. Cwp No. 612 Of 2025 on 1 September, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 623 of 2025 with CWP Nos. 612, 663, 655,669 and 3855 of 2025.

.

Judgment reserved on :25.08.2025 Date of Decision:01.09.2025 _______________________________________________________

1. CWP No. 623 of 2025

Manoj Kumar .......Petitioner Versus

2. CWP No. 612 of 2025

Sadam Hussain r to National Law University, Shimla ... Respondent

.......Petitioner

Versus

National Law University, Shimla ... Respondent

3. CWP No. 663 of 2025 Madan Lal .......Petitioner

Versus

National Law University ... Respondent ___________________________________________________

Lalit Kumar .......Petitioner Versus

National Law University ... Respondent

Praveen Kumar .......Petitioner Versus

National Law University ... Respondent

Rajesh Kumar Verma .......Petitioner

.

Versus

Himachal Pradesh National Law University ... Respondent Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel and Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate (through Video conferencing) and Mr. Gaurav

Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Rajesh

Kumar Parmar, Advocate.

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Since common questions of law and facts are

involved in the above captioned cases and similar reliefs have

been prayed for, this Court, after clubbing all the cases together,

heard them jointly and are being disposed of vide the common

judgment.

2. By way of instant petitions, petitioners have prayed

for the reliefs, which are similar, as such, reliefs prayed for in

CWP No. 623 of 2025 are reproduced herein below:-

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

"(i) That the impugned acts of the respondent-University above stated being contrary to all norms of justice may be quashed and set aside with direction to the

.

respondent-University to consider the petitioner

having been appointed on regular basis on and w.e.f.21.3.2022 for all intents and purposes i.e. for the

purpose of pay, seniority etc. etc.;

(ii) That the impugned act of the respondent in giving fictional breaks in the third year of contractual services of the petitioner being contrary to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and by this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be quashed and set- aside with directions to the respondent-University to

regularize the period of fictional breaks of the

petitioner;

(iii) That in the alternative direction may be issued to the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner

on and w.e.f. 21.3.2022 on completion of continuous service on contract basis for a period of two years to

secure the ends of law and justice;

(iv) That verbal termination/ retrenchment/ dispensing

with the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2025 may be quashed and set aside with direction

to the respondent-University to treat the petitioner in continuous service without any break of any kind whatsoever and to allow the petitioner to continue serving as security guard without keeping any ill will/malice against the petitioner for approaching this Hon'ble Court for the redressal of his grievances."

3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as

highlighted in the petitions and further canvassed by learned

.

counsel representing the petitioners, is that though the

respondent-University had issued advertisement dated

12.08.2021(Annexure P-1) for filling up various posts including

the post of Security Guard(Male) on regular basis, but while

making appointment, it resorted to pick and choose method by

offering regular appointment to some of the candidates,

whereas petitioners, who though were also declared successful,

was/were offered appointment on contract basis.

4. For having bird's eye view, relevant facts as emerge

from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties

are that vide advertisement dated 12.08.2021(Annexure P-1),

respondent-University invited applications for various posts

including the post of Security Guard(Male) figuring at Sr. No.10

in Group-D. As per the advertisement, 10 posts were available

(UR-6, SC-2, OBC-1 and EWS-1). It specifically came to be

notified in the advertisement that number of post(s) is/are

tentative and may increase or decrease from time to time for

different categories of posts. Therefore, candidates are

requested to apply under the respective category(s) as the post

of any reserved category could be included to be filled up on the

basis of afore advertisement. It also came to be notified that

.

number of vacancies & reservations of posts was liable to be

altered without any notice. Relevant portion of the advertisement

is as under:-

Group D

10 Securit 10 (UR- 4900- 10th pass from

y 6, SC-2, 10680+13 a recognized Guard OBC-1, 00 G.P. Board of (Male) EWS1) School Education.

                            r                              Preferable: Ex-
                                                           Servicemen

                                                           who have been
                                                           released from
                                                           the     service
                                                           most recently.
                                                           The         Ex-



                                                           Serviceman      1200/
                                                           male Security
                                                           Guards should -




                                                           be preferably
                                                           below the age
                                                           of 50 years





           INSTRUCTIONS/CONDITIONS        AND                              ESSENTIAL





           QUALIFICATION (S) AND EXPERIENCE ETC.


           i.        The University reserves the right to dispense with the written

examination for any post keeping in view the number of applications viz-a-viz vacancies and other circumstances. In lieu of marks for written test, the University may prescribe a direct selection criterion based on essential qualifications prescribe in the Regulations, (as applicable), and may directly conduct the Interview, Skill test/ evaluation of all the eligible applicants, as the case may be.

ii. Date for determining eligibility of all candidates in respect of Essential Qualification(s) and Experience, if any, etc. shall be determinable according to the prescribed closing date for submission of On-Line Recruitment Application (ORA) Form.

.

iii. Age: The minimum and maximum age limit of 18 to 45 years shall be determinable according to the prescribed closing date for submission of On-Line Recruitment Application

(ORA) Form.

iv. The upper age limit is relaxable by five years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes, Persons with disabilities &

Children/Grand Children of Freedom Fighters of Himachal Pradesh. The upper age relaxation is also available to Ex- servicemen candidates of H.P. as per provisions of relevant rules. r v. The candidates are advised to note down the USER ID and PASSWORD and this user ID and password will be

applicable for all future reference regarding the examination/tests, downloading roll numbers/call letters/entering fee detail etc. No other assistance can be provided in these issues.

vi. The candidates are advised to give their working mobile number and email ID, used by them in the online recruitment (ORA) application and ensure their working till

the completion of selection process to avoid inconvenience. There is no other means of contacting them except their email & Mobile numbers.

vii. The candidates shall fill up their complete and correct particulars in the ORA forms to avoid rejection of

candidature. Furnishing incorrect information may disqualify the candidate from appearing for recruitment to any post to be advertised by the University for a period of three years.

viii. No other mode except online payment (through the 'payment gateway' prescribed and available on the recruitment portal of the university, is acceptable for deposit of fees.

ix. No. of post(s) is/ are tentative and may increase or decrease from time to time for different categories of posts may be added. Therefore, candidates are requested to apply under their respective category (s)

as the post of any reserved category can be included to be filled up on the basis of this advertisement. The number of vacancies & reservation of post is liable to be altered without any notice.

.

x. The candidates must keep on checking the website regularly

for any further information regarding their roll numbers, admit card, evaluation schedule etc.

xi. As per the Government notification vide No. PER(AP)-C-B-

1/2019 Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Personnel (AP-III) dated 11.06.2019 when an Economically Weaker Sections EWS candidate is not available for selection, the post(s) will be treated automatically as de-

reserved and will be filled up from a non EWS candidate of unreserved category.

xii. . In cases of posts under categories 'C' and 'D' the candidate shall be eligible for applying and appointment, if he/she has

passed Matriculation and 10+2 from any school / institution situated within Himachal Pradesh. Provided this condition

shall not apply to Bonafide Himachalis.

xiii. Dispute, if any, shall be subject to Court jurisdictions of HP.

xiv. The University reserves the right to change any other terms of the advertisement or to rectify the inadvertent errors at any stage

xv. For all Groups of posts, terms and conditions of eligibility, appointment and services shall be governed by the relevant rules of the University.

xvi. Applicants must upload experience certificate, wherever required, from appropriate institution/authority clearly

specifying duration of service, pay scale and last gross salary drawn.

xvii. All further communications related to the above recruitments shall be through letter/ notices displayed on the University website i.e. http://www.hpnlu.ac.in.

xviii. UR- unreserved; SC- Scheduled Casts; OBC- other backward classes; EWS- economically weaker sections.

xix. Candidate are Requested to Check there email (Inbox as wall as spam) for login User Id and Password, after filling

up the Registration form on recruitment portal Link at University Website.

-Sd-

Registrar

.

5. Petitioners herein, being fully eligible, appeared in

the interview and were also declared successful, and the result

was declared on 13.05.2022(Annexure P-7). Careful perusal of

communication dated 13.05.2022, if perused in its entirety,

reveals that 10 posts of Security Guard were filled up on regular

basis, whereas petitioners, who had also applied under the same

advertisement, came to be offered appointment on contract basis

for a period of one year, as is evident from appointment letter

dated 20.3.2022(Annexure P-2).

6. Careful perusal of the appointment letter clearly

reveals that though petitioners herein were offered appointment

on contractual basis, but on fully salary in the pay scale of Rs.

4900-10680 + 1300 GP alongwith other allowances as per the

relevant Regulations of the Himachal Pradesh National Law

University, Shimla. Since petitioners herein were without any job,

they accepted contractual appointment, which was initially for a

period of one year, but their contract came to be extended for

almost 1 ½ years, as a result thereof, they rendered services for

more than 2 ½ with fictional breaks before final disengagement

on 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-9). In the aforesaid back ground

.

petitioners have approached this Court in the instant

proceedings, praying therein for following reliefs as have been

reproduced hereinabove.

7. Pursuant to the notices in the instant proceedings,

the respondent-University has filed reply, wherein specific

objections with regard to the maintainability of the petitions have

been taken.

8. Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel representing the

respondent-University, while referring to the reply filed by the

respondent-University, argued that present petitions are not

maintainable as petitioners failed to avail alternative remedy

available to them under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes

Act,1947 ( for short 'Act'). He submitted that once specific

remedy under the Act was available to the petitioners, they were

estopped from invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that since no legal

right or fundamental right of the petitioners have been adversely

affected, warranting the invocation of Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, petitions having been filed by the

petitioners deserve outright rejection. He further argued that the

respondent-University does not fall within the meaning of State

.

as enshrined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as

such, no writ is maintainable against the State. He further

submitted that at no point of time petitioners were offered

appointment on regular basis, rather advertisement itself

suggests that only 10 posts on regular basis were advertised. He

submitted that since petitioners at the time of interview were not

able to secure higher marks, they could not be offered

appointment against the regular post, rather such candidates,

who had obtained more marks than the petitioners were offered

appointment on regular basis. Learned counsel representing the

respondent-University further submitted that no doubt, pursuant

to the provision contained under advertisement, the number of

posts of Security Guards were increased, but the Selection

Committee found petitioners suitable only for appointment

against the post of Security Guards on contract basis for the

reason that at particular time only 10 posts of Security Guard on

regular basis were available. He submitted that mere selection of

the petitioners as Security Guards on contract basis does not

confer any right to claim regularization, especially when there

were no regular post over and above 10 posts, which already

stand filled up pursuant to selection in terms of advertisement

.

dated 12.08.2021(Annexure P-1).

9. He further submitted that since contractual services

of the petitioners were not renewed after 31.12.2024, there is no

violation of the principles of natural justice nor has any other right

vested in the petitioners warranting the adjudication by this

Court. He further submitted that by now it is well settled that

mere completion of requirement of 240 days' does not entitle a

workman to claim regularization in service. He submitted that it is

well established law that non-renewal of the services of a daily

wager/contractual employee upon the completion of his daily

wage/contractual tenure is ordinarily not subject to judicial

review. He further argued that at no point of time appointment

letter or contract of service ever been laid challenge by the

petitioners in appropriate proceedings and as such, they are

estopped from questioning the same after more than three years,

especially when, pursuant to their appointment, they continued to

render services on contract basis for more than three years. He

submitted that since the respondent-University is a new

university and had initially proposed engaging manpower

through an outsource agency to meet specific and exigent

staffing requirements, however said proposal was withdrawn

.

vide Annexure R-1. He further submitted that certain positions,

such as those involving service in girls' hostels, may require

female staff, rendering some existing male staff surplus to

requirement, and in this regard, the respondent-University

intends to revisit the requirement afresh in due course, based on

necessity and proper assessment. He further submitted that

petitioners have concealed material facts from the court

inasmuch as there had been regular selection of Security Guards

for 10 regular posts, but since the respondent-University failed to

make it to the regular list (Annexures P-7 & R-2), coupled with

the fact that at the relevant time the respondent-University felt

the need to engage more additional hands on contract basis, no

illegality can be said to have been committed the respondent-

University, while offering appointment to the petitioners against

the post of Security Guard on contact basis. He further submitted

that since Government of Himachal Pradesh has denied any

financial aid to the respondent-University vide Annexure R-2,

respondent-University felt it necessary to review its manpower

and accordingly the contract period of contractual staff, whose

services were no longer required, was not reviewed further.

While inviting attention of this Court to Annexure R-4, learned

.

counsel for the respondent-University submitted that University

has reviewed its sanctioned strength and as of today, there are

only 17 posts of Security Guard, out of which 10 posts already

stand filled up. He further submitted that since respondent-

University intends to appoint 7 Security Guards for the female

hostel and for the time being such posts have been filled up on

temporary basis, petitioners herein cannot claim regularization

against such posts. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondent-

University submitted that policy of State of Himachal Pradesh for

regularization is not applicable to the respondent-University

because the respondent-University is an autonomous body,

having its own set of rules and regulations, and it is governed by

its own service conditions and requirements of work.

10. To the contrary, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior

Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Yogesh Chandel, Advocate,

representing the petitioner(s), submitted that perusal of

advertisement dated 12.08.2021 itself reveals that same was

issued for regular posts, but yet petitioners were given

contractual appointment, which amounts to changing the rules of

the game midway. While inviting attention of this Court to the list

of selected candidates (Annexure R-7), learned Senior counsel

.

representing the petitioners argued that the respondent-

University made appointments of some candidates on a regular

basis and of others on a contractual basis, despite arising from

the same advertisement, which is violative of the constitutional

guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India. He further argued that petitioners did not

challenge the conditions of service at the first instance since the

respondent-University is a mighty employer and petitioners,

being a petty employees and unemployed at that time, were not

in a position to negotiate with the university. While relying upon

the policy of the government dated 02.12.2023 (Annexure P-4),

learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the employees,

who are due to complete two years of continuous service as on

31.03.2024 are required to be regularized, and the petitioners

being in service from 21.03.2022 to 20.03.2024 without any

break, deserve to be regularized as per afore policy. While

referring to Himachal Pradesh National Law University Executive

and Service Regulations, 2020, learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that as per Clause 2.5.2, all appointments

shall be in the nature of 'regular' appointment. He submitted that

now as per the advertisement and the said clause, it is clear that

.

the appointment could have been made on regular basis only.

He also submitted that the word used in the clause is 'shall,'

which makes it mandatory and not discretionary. Relevant

provision, as detailed hereinabove, is reproduced herein below:-

"2.5.2 Appointment and Nature of Appointments:-

(i) All appointments under these regulations shall be in the nature of regular appointment from the date of

appointment subject to requirements of probation as

provided under these regulations;

(ii) All personnel so appointed shall be eligible for full remuneration and emoluments as provided for under

the provisions of these regulations from the date of appointment;

" provided that a person who has superannuated or

taken VRS from a Governmental Department or a private entity may be appointed on contractual basis for

a consolidated slary of Rs. 50,000/- +10,000/- conveyance allowance;

(iii) Direct appointment shall not be made more than 50% of the posts, in a post cadre where the cadre consists of 4 or more than 4 posts. In such cadres 505 may be filled by way of direct recruitment.

(iv) Roster of reservation with reference to posts for Direct Recruitment by open completion, in respect of Groups C, and D posts/ services (Appendix-VI)."

11. While referring to Annexure R-2 annexed with the

reply of the respondent-University, learned counsel for the

.

petitioners submitted that 17 sanctioned posts have been shown

to be available with the respondent-University, whereas actual

sanctioned strength is 30 (Annexure P10). He submitted that 30

posts were available at the time of issuance of advertisement,

but yet only 10 posts were advertised. He further submitted that

Chapter I of Part II, Clause 1.1. of the 2020 Regulations

provides that the service conditions of contractual employees

are to be regularized as per the stipulations/guidelines issued by

the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. At this

stage, it would be profitable to reproduce Clause 1.1 of 2020

Regulations, which reads as under:-

"1.1. Appointment to various non-teaching posts of the

University and terms and conditions of service thereof shall be regulated by these Regulations:-

Provided that the service condition of duly

appointed contractual employees, who were entitled, as per the then applicable Himachal Pradesh Government Rules, to be regularized at the time of their contractual appointment, shall be governed by " The Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla, Executive and Service Regulations, 2020" after their regularization."

12. He submitted that since petitioners had worked for

240 days in each calendar year as per requirement, they ought

to have been regularized in view of regularization policy of the

Government (Annexure P-54). He submitted that though

respondent-University repeatedly extended the contract of the

.

petitioners, but same was done by giving fictional breaks. He

submitted that respondent-University purposely gave such

fictional breaks with a view to prevent the petitioners from

claiming regularization on the basis of policy of regularization

framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. While referring

to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammad

Abdul Quadir vs. DGP, (2009) 6 SCC 611, learned counsel

representing the petitioners submitted that giving fictional breaks

by the employer has been held to be untenable, and as such

'break' period is liable to be taken as continuous service of the

petitioners. He further submitted that such fictional breaks were

given to the petitioners in the third year of service. Lastly,

learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after

dispensing with the services of the petitioners, respondent-

University issued fresh advertisement on 08.01.2025 for filling up

some posts afresh, but vide notice dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure

R-1) the said advertisement was withdrawn. He submitted that

bare perusal of aforesaid advertisement itself suggests that there

are posts and work are available with the respondent-University,

but yet petitioners, who were appointed as Security Guards

through due process of law against the regular post, have been

.

illegally disengaged.

13. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties

and gone through the record carefully.

14. Admittedly, careful perusal of advertisement

Annexure P-1, issued by the respondent-University , whereby a

number of non-teaching posts came to be advertised, clearly

reveals that under Group-D, 10 posts of Security Guard(Male) on

regular basis were advertised. Out of the said 10 pots, six were

reserved for general category (UR), 2 SC, 1, OBC and 1 for

EWS in the pay scale of Rs. 4900-10680+1300 GP.

15. Since the number of posts was tentative and could

be increased or decreased from time to time for different

categories of posts in terms of advertisement (See: Clause IV) of

instructions/conditions and essential qualification and experience

etc., appended thereto), the Selection Committee recommended

as many as 26 persons for the post of Security Guard (Male) (on

regular basis), as is evident from the minutes of the Selection

Committee pertaining to the post Security Guard (Male)(Regular

basis) vide Advertisement No. HPNLU-A(7)-11(ADVT.)/2021/11,

dated 12.08.2021(Annexure R-2).

.

16. As per aforesaid minutes, total 270 candidates

applied for the post, out of which 196 candidates appeared for

the interview for the post of Security Guard(Male)(Regular

basis). The Selection Committee, having taken note of the fact

that University was in need to fill more than 10 posts of Security

Guard, proceeded to recommend 26 persons for appointment

against the post of Security Guard on regular basis.

17. Though, learned counsel representing the

respondent-University attempted to argue that since only 17

posts of Security Guards were available, there was no occasion

for the Selection Committee to recommend 26 persons. He

submitted that though the Selection Committee recommended

26 persons to be appointed on regular basis, but the University

administration, taking note of the fact that only 10 posts of

Security Guard were available, proceeded to grant appointment

on regular basis to first 10 candidates, whereas the petitioners

herein alongwith other persons were offered appointment on

contractual basis. However, this Court, having carefully perused

Annexure P-10 annexed with the rejoinder filed by the

petitioners, i.e. roster for non-teaching posts, is persuaded to

agree with Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel

.

representing the petitioners that there are 30 sanctioned posts of

Security Guard, out of which 15 are reserved for general

category, 6 for SC, 1 for ST, 5 for OBC and 3 ECW. If it is so, it

cannot be said that selection committee wrongly recommended

26 candidates for appointment on regular basis, especially when

there is nothing to suggest that prior to recommendation made

by the Selection Committee, some persons already stood

employed as Security Guards on regular basis. Though, at this

stage, learned counsel for the respondent-University attempted

to argue that university on account of various factors

subsequently reviewed its cadre strength and roster approved by

22nd minutes of the Executive Council held on 10th March, 2025

provided for only 17 posts of Security Guards, as is evident of

Annexure R-5.

18. True, it is that bare perusal of Annexures R-4 & 5

suggests that on account of various factors, the Executive

Council in it is meeting held on 12th March, 2025 reviewed the

cadre strength and decided to reduce the regular posts of the

Security Guard from 30 to 17. However, there is no dispute that

prior to aforesaid review, 30 sanctioned posts of Security Guards

were available with the respondent-University. If it is so,

.

Selection Committee in its meeting held on 12.08.2021

(Annexure R-2) rightly recommended 26 persons to be

appointed against the post of Security Guards on regular basis.

True, it is that that through advertisement, as detailed

hereinabove, 10 posts on regular basis came to be advertised

for the post of security guard, but as has been taken note

hereinabove, number of posts indicated in the advertisement

was tentative and same could increase or decrease from time to

time for different categories of the posts. The Selection

Committee, having taken note of requirement of the respondent-

University, decided to fill up more than 10 posts of Security

Guard (Annexure R-2). Though, Selection Committee

recommended all 26 persons to be appointed on regular basis,

but the respondent-university of its own without there being any

justification, proceeded to offer appointment on regular basis to

first 10 candidates, whereas other candidates including

petitioners were offered appointment on contractual basis, which

otherwise could not have been done for the reason stated

hereinabove. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment

passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7602 of

2010, titled Om Parkash vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and

.

others alongwith connected matters, wherein it has been held as

under:-

"11. Now significantly, in the R & P Rules for appointment of teachers, no such specific amendment was carried out to the effect that henceforth appointments can be made only or also on contract basis. This was so done only in terms of notification issued on 20th

September, 2010 when the Himachal Pradesh Higher Education, Post Graduate Teacher-Class-III (non -gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2010, were notified.

12. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, since petitioners' services

were taken over w.e.f. 6.2.2007, i.e. prior to issuance of the aforesaid Rules, petitions need to be allowed. As on this date, there was no provision in the rules, enabling the State to take over services of the petitioners on contract basis. No doubt, Government took a policy

decision to make all appointments on contract basis after 12th December, 2003, but then this could be done only by amending the rules and incorporating specific conditions therein. Executive power

could not have been exercised, in view of specific prior notification,

occupying the specified field. Also, policy decision did not supersede/repeal earlier decision in that regard. Rules were in existence. In the absence of same, Government could not have taken

over services of the petitioners on contract basis, particularly when their initial appointment was on regular basis."

19. In afore case, petitioners prayed for quashment of

different orders, whereby they stood appointed on contract basis.

They ought to have been given appointment on regular basis

and as such, their appointment be treated on regular basis from

the date of their appointment by the State, with all consequential

benefits. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court having taken note of

.

the fact that there was no provision in R&P Rules for filling up

post on contract basis, allowed the petitions and directed the

respondents to consider the petitioners' case for appointment as

Lecturer (School Cadre) in their respective Subjects on regular

basis w.e.f. 6.2.2007, the date on which College and services of

the petitioners were actually taken over. Since in the case at

hand, at the time of issuance of advertisement, there was no

provision for filling up the post on contract basis, rather

advertisement itself provided for filling up the post on regular

basis, coupled with the fact that Selection Committee

recommended inasmuch as 26 candidates against the post of

Security Guard on regular basis, there was no occasion, if any,

for the respondent to appoint petitioners herein on contract

basis.

20. True, it is that petitioners herein, without raising any

protest, accepted their appointment on contract basis, but this

Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioners, who were

recommended to be appointed against regular post, had no

option, but to accept the said offer. Since the petitioners, who

otherwise appeared to be well educated, were in dire need of

employment and as such, they proceeded to accept the post of

.

Security Guards on contract basis.

21. There is another aspect of the matter, which needs to

be taken note of, that petitioners herein, though were offered

appointment on contract basis, but was paid full salary i.e.

Rs. 4900-10680+1300 GP. Petitioners, being on receiving end,

could not bargain with the might University, which, on its own

whims and fancies, has been appointing person's dehors the

rules. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment

passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.190 of 2022,

titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Rajinder

Fishta, wherein it has been held as under:-

"21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport

Corporation Ltd. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly, 4 has observed as under:

"89............We have a Constitution for our country. Our judges are bound by their oath to "uphold the Constitution and the laws".

The Constitution was enacted to secure to all the citizens of this country social and economic justice. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. The principle deducible from the above discussions on this part of the case is in consonance with right and reason, intended to secure social and economic justice and conforms to the mandate of the great equality clause in Art. 14. This principle is that, the courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power. It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of all bargains of this type. No court can visualize the different situations which can arise in the affairs of men. One can only attempt to give some

illustrations. For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties. It will apply where the inequality is the result of circumstances, whether of the creation of the parties or not. It will apply to situations in

.

which the weaker party is in a position in which he can obtain

goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without them. It will also apply where a man has no choice, or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the

dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be. This principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the. contracting parties is equal or almost equal. This principle may not apply where both parties are businessmen and

the contract is a commercial transaction. In today's complex world of giant corporations with their vast infrastructural organizations and with the State through its instrumentalities and agencies entering into almost every branch of industry and commerce, there can be myriad situations which result in unfair

and unreasonable bargains between parties possessing wholly

disproportionate and unequal bargaining power. These cases can neither be enumerated nor fully illustrated. The court must judge each case on its, own facts and circumstances."

22) This principal has been re-iterated in several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the decision in LIC of India &

another Vs. Consumer Education & Research Centre & others(1995)5 SCC 482;

23. Therefore, having regard to the hugely unequal bargaining power

between the respondent and the appellants, it cannot be said that the respondent had a choice in the matter at all and he had acquiesced in

the condition of the extension order dated 30.05.2013 that he would not get any additional increment."

22. This Court finds that respondent-University extended

the contract service of the petitioners from 24.03.2024 to

23.09.2024 and for two days i.e. 21.09.2024 and 22.09.2024,

they were given fictional breaks. The respondent-University,

while giving another extension w.e.f. 23.09.2024 from

25.09.2024 to 31.12.2024, intentionally gave a break of one

day i.e.24.09.2024 to the petitioners purposely to prevent them

from completing 240 days in each calendar year, which could

.

further enable them to seek regularization in terms of policy of

regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

23. Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammad Abdul Quadir

case (supra) has deprecated the practice of giving fictional

breaks by employer. Relevant paras of aforesaid judgment are

as under:-

"16. We may next consider the challenge to the procedure of annual

termination and reappointment introduced by the Circular dated 17- 3-1995. The PIF Scheme and the PIF Additional Scheme were introduced by the Government of India. The Scheme does not contemplate or require such periodical termination and reappointment. Only ex-servicemen are eligible to be selected under

the Scheme and that too after undergoing regular selection process under the Scheme. They joined the Scheme being under the impression that they will be continued as long as the PIF Additional Scheme was continued. The artificial annual breaks and

reappointments were introduced by the State agency entrusted with the operation of the Scheme. This Court has always frowned upon artificial breaks in service."

24. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by

Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 645 of 2011, titled State

of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Keshav Ram, decided on

30.08.2017, wherein it has been held as under:-

"7. Question with regard to the condonation of short breaks also came to be considered by the Division Bench in CWP No. 4367 of 2009, decided on 1.12.2009, wherein Division Bench of this Court drawing strength from aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir case supra, categorically held that in light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ,

respondents ought to have condoned the shortage of few days while calculating 240 days in a particular calendar year in the case at hand. It also emerges from perusal of Annexure R-1 placed on record by the respondents that petitioner had worked for 210 days from April, 1994 to December, 1994 and thereafter, in the years,

.

1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, petitioner had worked for 227, 230, 229

and 227 days respectively. It also emerge from the record that in the year, 1999 (January, 1999 to April, 1999), petitioner had worked for 76 days. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that the petitioner at any point of time abandoned the job, rather learned

Single Judge has rightly observed that endeavor of such person would be always to complete 240 days to earn the benefit of regularization."

25. It is not in dispute that after the oral termination of the

petitioners, the work assigned to them prior to their

disengagement, was entrusted to the sweeper and Peons, as is

evident from Duty Chart dated 01.01.2025(Annexure P-9), which

itself suggest that though work was very much available, but yet

taking advantage of the poor plight of the petitioners, the

respondent-University, using its might, proceeded to disengage

him. Most importantly, respondent-University after, dispensing

with the services of the petitioners, issued fresh advertisement

on 08.01.2025 for filling up certain posts, but subsequently on

receipt of summons in the present petition, it proceeded to

withdraw the same. Such act of the respondent-University itself

suggest that petitioners, despite there being availability of work,

were thrown out/ disengaged for no justifiable reasons. Having

noticed act of the respondent-University in giving fictional breaks

to the petitioners, while they were on contract, coupled with the

fact that after their disengagement, respondent issued fresh

advertisement dated 08.01.2025 inviting therein applications for

.

some posts including the post of Security Guard, this Court has

no hesitation to conclude that entire exercise undertaken by the

respondent was to prevent petitioners from completing 240 days

in each calendar year, so that they could not subsequently claim

regularization in terms of the policy of regularization framed by

the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

26. Though, learned counsel representing the

respondent-University vehemently argued that the policy of

regularization of Government of Himachal Pradesh is not

applicable to the respondent-University, as the University being

an autonomous body has its own set of rules and regulations,

but careful perusal of Clause 1.1 containing in Chapter I of Part II

of the Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla,

Executive and Service Regulations, 2020, reveals that service

conditions of contractual employees are to be regularized/

governed as per the stipulations/notifications issued by the

Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. Similarly,

Clause 2.5.2 of afore Regulations itself suggests that all

appointments shall be in the nature of regular appointments. It

appears that respondent-University, having taken note of

aforesaid provisions contained in the Regulations have

.

purposely provided for regular appointments against various non

teaching staff in Advertisement No. HPNLU-A(7)-11(ADVT.)

/2021/11, dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure P-1), but subsequently

without there being any plausible justification, proceeded to grant

appointment to some of the candidates on regular basis and

some of the candidates on contract basis. Since as per aforesaid

Regulations, all posts were to be filled up on regular basis and

there is no provision contained in the Regulations for

appointment on contract/temporary basis, appointment given to

the petitioners in terms of the advertisement issued in the year,

2021 could not have been made on contractual basis.

27. No doubt, vide communication dated 10.01.2024

(Annexure R-3) issued under the signatures of Under Secretary

(Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Registrar,

Himachal Pradesh National Law University came to be apprised

that State Government is unable to provide any financial

assistance, but that could not be a ground to disengage the staff,

who was appointed strictly in terms of the Regulations as well as

by due process of law. Though, having taken note of aforesaid

communication dated 10.01.2024, Committee with regard to

assessment of requirement of non-teaching staff submitted its

.

report recommending discontinuation of all existing contractual

and daily wage employees after 31st December, 2024 with

further recommendation to hire/engage staff through outsourcing

agency, but the staff engaged prior to afore decision could not

have been disengaged in the manner they have been

disengaged, especially when afore Committee itself

recommended for appointment of 7 female Security guards, 11

sweepers( six males and five females), one Electrician, one

Plumber, two Malis and one Carpenter meaning thereby, though

there was a requirement of Security Guards, but yet in the name

appointing female Security Guards, petitioner(s), who had

rendered his services for more than four years to the utmost

satisfaction of the University were disengaged in most

clandestine manner.

28. Though, learned counsel for the respondent-

University attempted to argue that seven female Security Guards

are required for the Security of female hostel, but he was unable

to dispute that as per present arrangement, there is a two tiers

security system in the female hostels. Security inside hostel is

looked after by female Security Guards, whereas outer security

is being provided by male Security Guards. Otherwise also, this

.

Court cannot lose sight of the fact that at present, save and

except the female hostels, security outside the premises of the

respondent-University is being managed by male Security

Guards. If it is so, security of the hostel, especially female

hostels, cannot be taken so lightly, rather for effective guarding,

male security guards are required to be posted alongwith female

Security Guards. It is also not in dispute that all boys' hostels of

the respondent-University are situated outside the respondent-

University, rather they are located in the private buildings that too

at the distance of 4 to 5 KM from the respondent-University. 10

Security Guards appointed on regular basis otherwise cannot be

said to be sufficient for security of University premises, girls'

hostels and boys' hostels. Taking note of requirement of Security

Guards, respondent-University itself had provided for 30 regular

posts of Security Guards, as is evident from the details of

sanctioned, filled and vacant posts/positions of non-teaching

staff (Annexure P-10).

29. Leaving everything aside, this Court is of the view

that though the respondent-University is well within its right to

review the cadre strength taking note of various factors, but

certainly employees, who stood appointed prior to such cadre

.

review against various posts including Security Guard, could not

have been thrown out in the name of cadre review.

30. Though, learned counsel representing the

respondent-University argued that since petitioners herein

were appointed on contract basis and they were not on the

regular roll of the respondent-University, they were rightly

disengaged in view of the cadre review, whereby posts of

Security Guard were reduced from 30 to 17(10 male and 7

female), but this Court is not impressed with aforesaid

submission of learned counsel for the respondent- University for

the reason that very act of respondent inasmuch as offering

appointment to the petitioners on contract basis is illegal, for the

reason that advertisement itself was for regular appointment of

Security Guards. Moreover, the Selection Committee, taking

note of the requirement of the University, recommended 26

candidates for appointment against the post of Security Guard

on regular basis (Annexure R-2), but yet respondent taking

undue advantage of plight of poor persons i.e. petitioners,

offered them appointment on contract basis, which came to be

extended twice.

.

31. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the

petitioners herein had no option, but to accept the appointment

on contract, on account of their being in the need of employment.

No doubt, petitioners failed to lay challenge to the appointment

letter at first instance, but this Court is persuaded to agree with

learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were

repeatedly assured by the University that, in times to come, his

services would be regularized, as was otherwise the case with

the teaching staff. A number of teaching staff, who were

appointed on contract basis, subsequently came to be

regularized, which fact has not been disputed by the learned

counsel for the respondent.

32. There is another aspect of the matter that since

Himachal Pradesh National Law University Executive and

Service Regulations, 2020, which govern the service conditions

of employees of the University, clearly provide that appointment

shall be in the nature of 'regular' appointment, respondent-

University otherwise could not have offered appointment on

temporary basis. Till the time aforesaid regulations are amended

or substituted pursuant to decision of cadre review taken by the

respondent and further approved by Academic Council,

.

respondent University, though as per its requirement may

proceed to fill up lesser number of vacancies of Security Guards,

but certainly it cannot change the nature of regular appointment

to contract/temporary basis.

33. At this stage, it is apparent to take note of the fact

that though, by way of filing reply, question with regard to

maintainability came to be raised at the behest of the

respondent, but during proceedings of the case, learned

counsel representing the respondent fairly stated that he does

not press ground of maintainability as taken in the reply.

Otherwise also, this Court finds that bare perusal of 2(s), wherein

"workman" has been defined under Industrial Dispute Act,

coupled with the fact that petitioners herein are in receipt of full

salary i.e. pay scale of Rs. Rs. 4900-10680 + 1300 GP

alongwith other allowances, clearly shows that they did not fall in

the category of "workman". If it is so, appropriate remedy, if any,

for redressal of their grievance is to file present petitions under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, another

argument raised at the behest of the respondent that National

Law University does not fall within the definition of "State" as per

Article 12 of the Constitution, is not tenable in view of law laid

.

down by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in

CWP No.9223 of 2026, titled Dr. Anjana Vyas versus National

Law University and others, decided on 17.04.2017, wherein it

has been categorically held that institution engaged in imparting

higher education in various subjects, which is declared as a

deemed University, is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of

the Constitution of India. Aforesaid decision rendered by High

Court of Rajasthan is based upon the judgment passed by

Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Dr. Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM

University and others, AIR 2016 SC 73. Since learned counsel

for the respondent has fairly accepted the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court sees no necessity to reproduce

the same, as it would be unnecessarily make the judgment

bulkier.

34. During the proceedings of the case, learned counsel

for the respondent- University placed reliance upon the judgment

passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma

Devi, 2006(4) SCC 1, to state that when appointment is not

made under any rule and without any competition, it will not

confer any right upon the appointee to continue and the same

would end, in the case of the contractual appointment, when the

.

contract comes to an end, and in case of causal/daily wage

when the services are discontinued. This Court has no quarrel

with the aforesaid proposition of law, rather the same, being

binding needs to be accepted, however, having carefully perused

aforesaid judgment vis-a-vis facts of the given case, same is not

applicable in the cases at hand. Though, in the case at hand the

petitioners have been given appointment on contract basis, but

as has been noticed hereinabove, petitioners though were

required to be offered appointment on regular basis pursuant to

the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, but

respondent-University taking undue advantage of situation and

poor plight, proceeded to offer appointment to them on contract

basis, which repeatedly came to be renewed. Since the very act

of the respondent-University in offering appointment to the

petitioners on contract basis is illegal, and this Court is of the

view that petitioners ought to have been offered appointment on

regular basis from day one, judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex

Court in Uma Devi's case(supra) cannot be made applicable.

35. Another judgment pressed into service by learned

counsel for the respondent-University i.e. titled Gridco Limited

.

and another vs. Sadananda Doloi and others, 2011(15) SCC

16, is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the

present case. In aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court held

that power to make a contractual employment is implicit in the

power to make a regular permanent appointment, unless the

statute under which the authority exercises its powers and

discharges its functions or the Rules & Regulations governing

recruitment under the authority specifically forbid the making of

such an appointment. In the case at hand, as has been noticed

hereinabove, advertisement was issued for regular appointment

and Selection Committee, taking note of condition contained in

the advertisement, which specifically provided that number of

posts is tentative and may increase or decrease from time to

time for different categories, recommended 26 candidates

including the petitioners for appointment against the post of

Security Guard on regular basis, coupled with the fact that.

Clause 2.5.2 of Himachal Pradesh National Law University

Executive and Service Regulations 2020, which governs the

service condition of employees of the University, clearly provides

that all the appointments shall be in the nature of regular

appointment, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, for the

.

respondents to offer appointment on contract basis.

36. Though, aforesaid judgment pressed into service

suggests that appointment made on contract basis, if any, does

not constitute a breach of rules which do not provide for making

contractual appointments, but having taken note of the fact that

names of the petitioners were recommended for regular

appointment by the Selection Committee and at that relevant

time, sanctioned strength of Security Guard was 30, rightful

claim of the petitioners cannot be permitted to be defeated on

the submissions/ arguments raised at the behest of the

respondent-University. Similarly, this Court finds no application

of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Yogesh

Mahajan vs. R.C.Deka, Director AIIMS, 2018(3) SCC 218,

wherein it came to be ruled that a contractual employee has no

right to contract renewal unless a statutory or other legal right

exists in his favour. There cannot be any quarrel with the

aforesaid proposition of law. Though, in the case at hand,

contract of the petitioners were renewed from time to time, but

since for the reason detailed in the earlier part of the judgment,

very appointment of the petitioners on contract was bad, there is

no necessity to go into the question of right, if any, of the

.

contractual employee to contract renewal.

37. Since it is none of the case of the respondent-

University that at the time of appointment of the petitioners

pursuant to advertisement dated 12.08.2021, petitioners were

not eligible or that their appointment was dehors the

Regulations, judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Uma Devi's case(supra) otherwise cannot be made applicable,

for the reason that in the afore judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court

has held that regular appointment, as per the constitutional

scheme for public employment, must be the rule, there is nothing

in the constitutional scheme which prohibits the Union or State

Government or their instrumentalities from engaging persons

temporarily or on daily wages, without following the required

procedure, to meet the needs of the situation. In the case at

hand, petitioners were not only duly qualified, but were also

recommended for regular appointment by the Selection

Committee, which made its recommendations after taking note of

the availability of vacancies as well as requirement of the

respondent-University.

38. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion

made herein, this Court finds merit in the present petitions and

.

accordingly same are allowed. The orders of verbal

disengagement of the petitioners from the posts of Security

Guards are set-aside, with a further direction to the respondent-

University to reengage the petitioners on the post of Security

Guard. The petitioners shall be deemed to have been appointed

on regular basis from the date of their initial appointment

pursuant to the recommendation made by the Selection Board.

Since petitioners have been receiving regular pay scale during

their period of engagement, they shall not be entitled to any

monetary benefits for the period they remained disengaged, but

such period shall be counted for all other consequential benefits

including seniority. Pending applications, if any, also stand

disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 01, 2025 (shankar)