[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Pankaj Dutt Kaushik And Others ... vs Gurukula Kangari Deemed University ... on 18 December, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J
MCC No.3/2024 (Review Application)
IA No.4/2025 (Delay Condonation Application)
In
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No.451 of 2021
Pankaj Dutt Kaushik and Others ...Petitioners
Versus
Gurukula Kangari Deemed University Haridwar and Others
...Respondents
With
MCC No.5/2024 (Review Application)
In
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No.196 of 2021
Vijay Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
University Grants Commission and Another ...Respondents
With
MCC No.5/2024 (Review Application)
IA No.6/2024 (Delay Condonation Application)
In
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No.197 of 2021
Pankaj Dutt Kaushik ...Petitioner
Versus
University Grants Commission and Another
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner Ms. Priyanka Agrawal, learned counsel.
Counsel for Respondent No.1/UGC Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel
Counsel for Respondent No.2 Ms. Neeti Rana, learned counsel.
1
JUDGMENT :
(PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J)
Review applications have been filed along with delay
condonation applications. For the reasons indicated in the delay
condonation applications, the same are allowed, and the delay in
filing review applications is hereby condoned.
2. These writ petitions were decided vide judgment dated
19.11.2024, by holding that in the absence of any provision for
regularization of contractual employees, the relief of regularization
cannot be granted to petitioners. In the said judgment, however, an
observation was made that petitioners have not challenged the
advertisement issued in the year 2021.
3. Petitioners have sought review of the judgment dated
19.11.2024 only on the ground that they challenged the
advertisement in writ petitions, which fact was overlooked. It is
submitted that petitioners were appointed against sanctioned vacant
posts in the year 2013, therefore, they have earned a right to be
considered for regularization.
4. In support of this contention, review applicants have placed
reliance upon a communication dated 28.06.2012 issued by
University Grants Commission to the Registrar, Gurukul Kangri
University, Haridwar. By the said communication, approval for
creation of certain non-teaching (non-technical) post under OBC
grant was given including two posts of Assistant Registrars.
5. In clause (i) of the said communication, however, the
following was provided:-
"As per the Tandon Committee recommendations on Deemed University, status
of Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidyalaya is in category 'C' and this issue is pending
in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, University may fill up these posts on
tenure/contract basis initially for 2 years or till the final decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in this matter whichever is earlier. While issuing appointment
order on tenure/contract basis, the period of appointment may clearly be
indicated in the letter of appointment and it may also be clearly specified that
the services rendered in the University will not be counted for any purpose and
they will have no right for regularization in the event of the post is filled on
regular basis. The University may frame the Recruitment Rules for the post
being sanctioned and appointment may be made strictly as per the Recruitment
Rules."
6. A careful perusal of clause (i) of the aforesaid
communication reveals that while offering contractual appointment
to persons appointed against newly created posts, stipulation was to
be made in the offer of appointment, that the services rendered in
the University will not be counted for any purpose and appointee
will have no right of regularization, in the event the posts are filled
on regular basis. It was further provided that the University shall
frame Recruitment Rules for the posts being sanctioned and
appointments were to be made strictly as per Recruitment Rules.
7. Learned counsel for the review applicants has drawn
attention of this Court to a letter issued by Registrar of the
University on 11.02.2014 to the Secretary, University Grants
Commission, which is on record as Annexure No.11 to the writ
petition. By the said letter, University Grants Commission was
requested to waive the condition as mentioned in clause (i) of the
communication dated 28.06.2012 issued by University Grants
Commission.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, concedes that
University Grants Commission has not waived the condition as
mentioned in clause (i) of the said communication. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to another
communication dated 06.05.2019 (Annexure No.20 to the writ
petition), where also in para 4 it is provided that non-teaching (non-
technical) posts shall be filled as per the Recruitment Rules framed
by the University. The said communication is silent regarding
regularization of persons appointed on contract, like the petitioners.
The advertisement which has been challenged in the writ petition
was issued in terms of the directives issued by University Grants
Commission from time to time.
9. Since petitioners accepted appointment against non-teaching
(non-technical) posts in University with eyes wide open to the
condition as mentioned in clause (i) of the communication dated
28.06.2012, therefore, the claim for regularization now staked by
them is without any substance. In fact that condition that anyone
appointed against those posts was prevented from claiming
regularization was added as the matter was pending before Hon'ble
Supreme Court, and that condition has not been waived so far.
Therefore, petitioners do not have any statutory or legal right
whatsoever for claiming regularization. The selection process is yet
to be concluded. If petitioners have applied, their claim for regular
appointment shall be considered as per Rules, and if there is any
provision of weightage for experience, then the benefit of
experience earned shall be given to them.
10. Thus, we do not find any error apparent on the face of
record, which may justify invocation of the review jurisdiction.
Consequently, the review applications are rejected.
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J.
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt:18.12.2025
NR/Akash
