HC to Panjab University: Regularise contractual Assistant Professors working for 12 years

Holding that the State and its institutions cannot “exploit citizens nor take advantage of mass unemployment”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered regularisation of contractual Assistant Professors serving for more than 12 years in the constituent colleges of Panjab University.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal ruled that the petitioners, who were appointed in 2012 after undergoing a due selection process against sanctioned posts, were not “backdoor entrants” and could not be denied regularisation merely because they were initially appointed on a contractual basis.

“The petitioners were appointed after following due procedure. They are fully qualified. They are working with the University since 2012 and that too without any protection of this Court or any other Court. They were selected against sanctioned posts,” the Bench observed, directing Panjab University to regularise their services within six weeks. The petitioners were represented by advocate Sarthak Gupta.

Justice Bansal made it clear that “they shall be deemed to be regularised” if no order of regularisation was passed within the stipulated six weeks, and would be entitled to seniority and regular pay from the expiry of that period.

Justice Bansal asserted that governments and public institutions had “made hay” from a Constitution Bench judgment on contractual employment. “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. Many teachers appointed on contract basis are getting miniscule salary even in comparison to regularly appointed peons,” the court observed.

Justice Bansal asserted that public funds were being “siphoned off for subsidies instead of appointing regular employees and paying regular pay scale.” “The State being a model employer neither can exploit its citizen nor take advantage of mass unemployment. It is expected to make recruitment in accordance with prescribed procedure and on permanent basis. It cannot keep hanging sword of termination,” the court added.

Justice Bansal during the hearing observed that the varsity’s counsel was unable to cite any judgment where regularisation was denied in cases where the appointment was made after due process and against sanctioned posts. “Despite being repeatedly asked, counsel for the respondent could not point out any judgment where regularization was denied in spite of appointment after following due procedure and against sanctioned posts,” the court added.

Going into the background of the matter, Justice Bansal observed the petitioners were appointed through an advertisement, faced interviews, and met all University Grants Commission (UGC) qualifications. “There was no illegality in their appointment,” the court observed, adding that the university had not framed any policy for regularisation of its long-serving contractual employees.

The court also advised the university to consider similar claims of other contractual teachers who had completed over 10 years of service. “During the course of hearing, it was revealed that there are other teachers who are working for more than 10 years as contractual. The respondent, to avoid litigation, may consider claim of other teachers in the light of instant judgment,” the Bench stated.

The court, however, clarified that the university would be “free to fill other posts” through advertisement under challenge.