Jithin Jose vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2025

[Cites 40, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Jithin Jose vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2025

These writ appeals filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, arise out of the common judgment dated 15.10.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.34727 of 2023, 35305 of 2023, 3613 of 2024, 4094 of 2024, 4803 of 2024 and 16606 of 2024.

2. W.A.No.1664 of 2024 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.34727 of 2023; W.A.No.1716 of 2024 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.3613 of 2024; W.A.No.1842 of 2024 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.4094 of 2024; W.A.No.1707 of 2024 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.35305 of 2023; W.A.No.1736 of 2024 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No. 4803 of 2024; and W.A.No.1694 of 2024 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.16606 of 2024.

3. The appellants-petitioners, who are working as Assistant Professors, on a contract basis, in various departments in the Engineering Colleges under the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), have filed those petitions, invoking the 2025:KER:68685 16 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking various reliefs, including declaratory reliefs, i.e., a declaration that the petitioners are eligible to continue in their respective departments as Assistant Professors by extension of their temporary appointments until regular appointments are made based on a selection process; a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to continue in their respective posts as Assistant Professors and that, they are not liable to be replaced by another set of temporary hands. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the decision taken by the Syndicate in the 713th meeting held on 22.07.2023, to the extent of approving the recommendation of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Staff and Establishment, Finance and Purchase and Academic Matters that the continuous engagement of faculties on a contract basis shall not exceed four years; and also the notifications issued by the University for fresh recruitment of Assistant Professors on contract basis in the respective disciplines, initially for a period of one year, which may extended up to two years, with a break during the vacation, i.e., during May and June.

4. In the writ petitions, detailed counter affidavits have 2025:KER:68685 17 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 been filed on behalf of the University, opposing the reliefs sought for. In the counter affidavits, the University contended that the engagement of the petitioners as Assistant Professors in various departments in the Engineering Colleges under the University was on contract basis, for a period of one year, with a break during the vacation, i.e., during May and June. The petitioners were given extension of their contract appointment, based on the requirement. At the time of their initial appointment on contract basis, as well as on the renewal or extension of the contract, the petitioners have to execute an agreement with the University, on stamp paper, which prescribes the specified period of their appointment, the clauses regarding the absence of an obligation of the part of the University to offer them continued employment after the expiry of the contract period, etc. All the petitioners had executed contract agreements at the time of their initial appointment as well as at the time of the renewal or extension of their appointment. They were granted an extension of their contract appointment, as a special case, in the absence of a valid rank list. True copies of the contracts executed by the petitioners with the University at the time of their initial appointment, as well 2025:KER:68685 18 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 as at the time of renewal or extension of the contract, are placed on record along with the counter affidavit filed by the University.

5. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the University, it was contended that, after agreeing with the period of appointment and executing the contracts with the University, the petitioners are not entitled to turn around and challenge the conditions prescribed in the said contracts or the order granting them appointment, renewal or extension of appointment as Assistant Professors on a contract basis. The decision of the Syndicate of the University in its 713th meeting held on 22.07.2023 that the continuous engagement of a faculty appointed on contract basis shall not exceed four years was taken based on the recommendations of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Staff and Establishment, Finance and Purchase and Academic Matters that the continuous engagement of faculties on contract basis shall not exceed four years. Vide Government letter No.E2/94/2022/H.Edn. dated 21.02.2023, the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, informed the Registrar of the University that the contract appointment of a faculty exceeding 240 continuous days in a calendar year will fall 2025:KER:68685 19 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and, therefore, the University has to limit the period of contract appointment of a faculty to 240 days, and notify the vacancies on an annual basis. The University issued a notification dated 06.01.2024, inviting applications from qualified candidates for appointments to the post of Assistant Professor in various disciplines, on a contract basis. In the counter affidavit the University has pointed out Clause 13.0 of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018, which prescribes that appointments of teachers on contract basis should not be made initially for more than one academic session, and the performance of any such entrant teacher should be reviewed before re-appointing him/her on contract basis for another session.

6. The two questions considered by the learned Single Judge were as follows; whether the petitioners can claim to continue their service even after the expiry of the period specified in the notification and the contracts they have separately entered 2025:KER:68685 20 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 into with the University; and whether the restriction in granting appointments to persons who have already put in their service as contract employees for more than four years in the University is proper or not.

7. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions with the directions contained in the last paragraph of the judgment dated 15.10.2024. The said paragraph reads thus;

"In such circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions;

(i) The petitioners do not have the right to continue in the posts after the completion of the terms specified in the respective contracts entered with the University unless the said term is extended by the University.

(ii) The restrictive clause contained in the notification dated 01.10.2023 that "the candidates who have worked for four years or more on contract appointment in this University will only be considered in the absence of qualified candidates who have not completed four years of appointment on contract basis" is not legally sustainable.

(iii) All the petitioners will have the right to participate in the selection process notified as per the notification dated 01.10.2023 or any other notifications, irrespective of the length of service they have already completed under contract employment with the University.

2025:KER:68685 21 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024

(iv) The University shall provide preference by way of additional grace marks for the services already rendered by the respective petitioners while conducting the selection process for subsequent appointments, if not already provided, by adopting a reasonable criteria determined by the University."

8. The judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent of declining the relief that the petitioners shall not be replaced with another set of temporary hands, is under challenge in these writ appeals.

9. On 22.10.2024, when W.A.No.1664 of 2024 came up for admission, it was admitted on file, and the respondents entered appearance through the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science and Technology. The Division Bench passed an interim order dated 22.10.2024. Paragraphs 3 and also the last paragraph of the said order read thus;

"3. We find that a far reaching consequence would arise if the continuity of Assistant Professors is not allowed either on a contract basis or otherwise, as far as the students are concerned. If the University resorts to a contract appointment for one year, it will have an adverse impact on the educational system itself. The University will have to 2025:KER:68685 22 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 answer before this Court why they are not taking steps to replace the contract employees with regular hands. An affidavit shall be filed before this Court in this regard. Taking note of the fact that the fresh appointment of the Assistant professors on a contract basis may adversely affect the students, and there is no reason to replace the contract employees with another set of contract employees, we order that the petitioners be permitted to continue until further orders. However, if the University is proposing to replace the contract employees with regular hands, the University can state before this Court that the petitioners are to be replaced by regular hands."

10. On 03.01.2025, when W.A.No.1664 of 2024 came up for consideration along with the connected matters, a Division Bench of this Court passed another interim order. The last paragraph of the order dated 03.01.2025 reads thus;

"Petitioners have a prima facie case of seeking restraint of their replacement by another set of contractual employees by causing notification, as it would have a serious threat to their employment on account of non-extension of their services. Accordingly, we grant an interim stay with the clarity that the appellants will continue to work as contractual employees and will not be replaced by another set of contractual employees except through the regular process."

11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-

2025:KER:68685 23 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 petitioners in the respective writ appeals, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the State and the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science and Technology for the University and its officials.

12. The learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners in the respective writ appeals contended that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in declining the relief that the appellants-petitioners shall not be replaced with another set of temporary hands. The contentions raised by the petitioners, relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC 292], Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti [(2022) 15 SCC 540], etc., were not properly understood and considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.1664 of 2024, 1694 of 2024 and 1842 of 2024 has also relied on various decisions of the High Court in which the observation contained in paragraph 49 of the decision of the Apex Court in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] was followed. The learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.1707 of 2024, 1716 2025:KER:68685 24 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 of 2024 and 1736 of 2024 and also the learned counsel for the appellant in the connected appeals would place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 : 2024 KHC OnLine 6750].

13. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science and Technology and the learned Senior Government pleader contended that the appointments of the appellants-petitioners are purely on contract basis, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the agreements. They have no legal right either to claim continuance as Assistant Professors in various Departments in the Engineering Colleges under the University after the expiry of the period specified in the notification and the respective contracts they have entered into with the University or to continue in their respective post until regular appointments are made by the University. The learned Standing Counsel for the University relied on the decision of a Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India [2016 SCC OnLine HP 2696 : 2017 (3) KLT SN 47], the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Anita [(2016) 8 SCC 293], Yogesh Mahajan v. All India Institute 2025:KER:68685 25 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 of Medical Sciences [(2018) 3 SCC 218], Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation v. Paramjeet Singh [(2019) 6 SCC 250] and also the judgment of this Court in Santhosh K.V. v. Malabar Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2018 SCC OnLine Ker 1234 : 2018 (2) KLJ 837]. They would also point out the relevant provisions under the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 and also the previous Regulations of the year 2010.

14. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the appellants-petitioners are appointed as Assistant Professors, on contract basis, in various departments in the Engineering Colleges under the Cochin University of Science and Technology. The notifications issued by the University contemplated that the appointments shall be for a period of one year, which may be renewed for a maximum period of two years with break during May-June vacation or till regular recruits join duty, whichever is earlier. On the basis of a selection process, the appellants were 2025:KER:68685 26 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 included in the rank lists published by the University. Based on that selection process, the appellants were given appointments as Assistant Professors for the period specified in the order of appointment. Before joining duty, all the appellants executed agreements with the University, wherein the terms of their appointment, including the period of appointment were specified. On completion of the initial term of one year plus the extended period in terms of the notifications issued by the University, the tenure of appointment of the appellants was extended further. The service details of the appellants-petitioners are furnished in the statement of facts of the respective writ petitions.

15. As per the service details furnished in W.P.(C)No.34727 of 2023, the contract appointment of appellants 1 to 7 in W.A.No.1664 of 2024 as Assistant Professors commenced on 10.01.2014, 02.07.2014, 07.10.2005, 07.09.2020, 15.01.2014, 02.07.2018 and March, 2020, respectively. As per the service details furnished in W.P.(C)No.16606 of 2024, the contract appointment of the appellant in W.A.No.1694 of 2024 as Assistant Professor commenced on 01.07.2019. As per the service details furnished in W.P.(C)No.35305 of 2023, the contract appointment 2025:KER:68685 27 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 of appellants 1 to 4 in W.A.No.1707 of 2024 as Assistant Professors commenced on 11.02.2025, 24.09.2013, 08.06.2020 and 02.07.2018 respectively. As per the service details furnished in W.P.(C)No.3613 of 2024, the contract appointment of appellants 1 to 5 in W.A.No.1716 of 2024 as Assistant Professors commenced on 02.07.2018, 21.12.2021, 30.03.2023, 10.12.2014 and 22.11.2021, respectively. As per the service details furnished in W.P.(C)No.4803 of 2024, the contract appointment of appellants 1 to 4 in W.A.No.1736 of 2024 as Assistant Professors commenced on 11.02.2015, 24.09.2013, 08.06.2020 and 02.07.2018, respectively. As per the service details furnished in W.P.(C)No.4094 of 2024, the contract appointment of appellants 1 to 7 in W.A.No.1842 of 2024 as Assistant Professors commenced on 10.01.2014, 02.07.2014, 07.10.2005, 07.09.2020, 05.01.2014, 02.07.2018 and March, 2020, respectively.

16. The memos issued by the Registrar of the University offering appointment to the appellants as Assistant Professors on contract basis in various departments in the Engineering Colleges under the University, for a period of one year from the date of joining or till regular recruits join duty, whichever is earlier, with 2025:KER:68685 28 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 break during May-June (vacation months), on payment of a consolidated remuneration, are placed on record in the respective writ petitions. As per the said memos, the appellants are required to execute an agreement with the University in the prescribed format, in a stamp paper worth Rs.200/-. The proceedings of the Deputy Registrar (Administration), based on the reports of the Principal of the concerned Engineering Colleges, regarding the joining of duty by the appellants, on contract basis, enclosing therewith the contract agreements, are also placed on record in the respective writ petitions.

17. Along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University, the contract agreements executed by the petitioners in the respective writ petitions are placed on record. The said contracts executed at the time of initial appointments and also at the time of subsequent appointments specifically provide that the period of contract appointment shall be for the period specified in the respective contract or till fresh contract/regular appointment is made, whichever is earlier. During the period of contract, the University will pay the appointee a consolidated salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. The appointee shall not be entitled to any 2025:KER:68685 29 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 other emoluments or concessions for the contract period. Subject to the conditions as above, the contract appointment shall terminate on the expiry of the period specified in the contract. However, either party can make an application for the earlier termination of the contract to the other party of the contract, and the employer reserves the right to terminate the appointment on such application. The said contracts also provide that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to provide any employment to the appointee on the expiry of the contract period, nor shall it be obligatory on the part of the appointee to accept employment under the employer after the contract period.

18. The stand taken in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the University in the respective writ petitions is that the Syndicate of the University at the time of creation of posts in the respective Engineering Colleges had resolved to appoint regular faculties only against 50% of the posts and to fill up the rest of the posts with contract/guest faculties. As per Annexure R2(a) University order dated 07.12.2020, which is one issued in terms of the guidelines for daily wages/contract appointments in G.O(P)No.81/2019/Fin. dated 09.07.2019 issued by the 2025:KER:68685 30 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Government of Kerala, initial contract appointments are made for a period of one year and the second term of extension is granted based on the positive recommendation of the Head of the Department concerned. Extensions beyond two years are being made as per the decision of the Syndicate. Usually, the candidates are allowed to complete one term, i.e., for a period of three years, and appointments thereafter will be made from a fresh rank list. In cases where rank lists are not available, an extension of the contract period will be granted for an additional six months or till fresh recruits join duty, whichever is earlier. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the University in the counter affidavits filed in the respective writ petitions is that after agreeing with the period of appointment on contract basis and executing the contract agreements, the appellants-petitioners cannot turn around and dispute the condition prescribed in the order granting them contract appointment/renewal/extension. In the counter affidavit, the University has also justified the decision taken by the Syndicate in the meeting held on 22.07.2023, as evident from the University order dated 09.08.2023 [Ext.P9 in W.P.(C)No.34727 of 2023], imposing a restriction in granting contract appointments to 2025:KER:68685 31 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 persons who have already put in their service as contract employees for more than four years, we do not propose to deal with those contentions in these writ appeals, since the University has not challenged the judgment dated 15.10.2024 of the learned Single Judge to the extent of setting aside the restrictive clause contained in the notification dated 01.10.2023 as well as subsequent notifications, by filing a writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

19. In Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, a Three- Judge Bench of the Apex Court, while considering the sustainability of certain directions issued by the High Court of Panjab and Haryana in the light of various orders passed by the State Haryana and State of Panjab for the absorption of its ad hoc or temporary employees and daily-wagers or casual labourers, observed that, ordinarily speaking, the creation and abolition of a post is the prerogative of the Executive. It is the Executive again that lays down the conditions of service, subject, of course, to a law made by the appropriate Legislature. This power to prescribe the conditions of service can be exercised either by making rules 2025:KER:68685 32 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or, in the absence of such rules, by issuing rules/instructions in exercise of its executive power. The court comes into the picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights, statutory provisions, rules and other instructions, if any, governing the conditions of service. The main concern of the court in such matters is to ensure the rule of law and to see that the Executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It also means that the State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the directive principles of the Constitution. It is for this very reason that it is held that a person should not be kept in a temporary or ad hoc status for a long time. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for a long time, the court presumes that there is a need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly directs regularisation. The principles relevant in 2025:KER:68685 33 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 this regard are stated in several decisions, including the decisions in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka [(1990) 2 SCC 396] and Jacob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority [(1991) 1 SCC 28].

19.1. In Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], after referring to the principles laid down in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association [(1990) 2 SCC 396] and Jacob M. Puthuparambil [(1991) 1 SCC 28], the Three-Judge Bench held that the court must, while giving directions for regularisation, act with due care and caution. It must first ascertain the relevant facts, and must be cognizant of the several situations and eventualities that may arise on account of such directions. A practical and pragmatic view has to be taken, inasmuch as every such direction not only tells upon the public exchequer but also has the effect of increasing the cadre strength of a particular service, class or category. On the facts of the case at hand, the Three-Judge Bench noticed that, apart from the fact that the High Court was not right in holding that the several conditions imposed by the State Haryana and State of Panjab in 2025:KER:68685 34 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 their respective orders relating to regularisation are arbitrary and not valid, the High Court acted rather hastily in directing wholesome regularisation of all such persons who have put in one year's service, and that too unconditionally. In paragraph 25 of the said decision, the Three-Judge Bench pointed out several problems that would arise if such directions became the norm.

19.2. In Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], the Three-Judge Bench found that the direction by the High Court that all those ad hoc/temporary employees who have continued for more than a year should be regularised has been given without reference to the existence of a vacancy. The direction in effect means that every ad hoc/temporary employee who has been continued for one year should be regularised even though (i) no vacancy is available for him, which means creation of a vacancy; (ii) he was not sponsored by the employment exchange nor was he appointed in pursuance of a notification calling for applications, which means he had entered by a back-door; (iii) he was not eligible and/or qualified for the post at the time of his appointment; (iv) his record of service since his appointment is not satisfactory. None of the decisions relied upon by the High Court justify such wholesale, 2025:KER:68685 35 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 unconditional orders. Moreover, from the mere continuation of an ad hoc employee for one year, it cannot be presumed that there is a need for a regular post. Such a presumption may be justified only when such continuance extends to several years. Further, there can be no 'rule of thumb' in such matters. The conditions and circumstances of one unit may not be the same as those of the other. Just because, in one case, a direction was given to regularise employees who have put in one year's service as far as possible and subject to fulfilling the qualifications, it cannot be held that in each and every case such a direction must follow irrespective of and without taking into account the other relevant circumstances and considerations. The relief must be moulded in each case, having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances of that case. It cannot be a mechanical act but a judicious one. Judged from this standpoint, the Three-Judge Bench held that the impugned directions of the High Court that all those ad hoc/temporary employees who have continued for more than a year should be regularised are totally untenable and unsustainable. Though persons belonging to those categories, continuing over a number of years, have a right to claim 2025:KER:68685 36 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 regularisation and the authorities are under an obligation to consider their case for regularisation in a fair manner, keeping in view the principles enunciated in the decisions on the point, the blanket direction given by the High Court cannot be sustained.

19.3. In Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], the Three-Judge Bench made certain observations, which each Government or authority should bear in mind while devising its own criteria or principles for regularisation of ad hoc or temporary employees in Government service. Paragraphs 45 to 50 of the said decision read thus;

"45. The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary employee.

46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not 2025:KER:68685 37 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.

47. Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly.

48. An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes.

49. If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State.

50. The proper course would be that each State prepares a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if 2025:KER:68685 38 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 a scheme is already framed, the same may be made consistent with our observations herein so as to reduce avoidable litigation in this behalf. If and when such person is regularised he should be placed immediately below the last regularly appointed employee in that category, class or service, as the case may be."

20. By the order of reference in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2) [(2006) 4 SCC 44] the conflicting opinions between the Three-Judge Bench decisions in Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar [(1997) 2 SCC 1], State of Haryana v. Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] and Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka [(1990) 2 SCC 396] on the one hand and State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Verma [(1996) 7 SCC 562], State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar [(1992) 1 SCC 489] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507] on the other, was referred for consideration by a Five- Judge Bench (Constitution Bench).

21. In State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], before the Constitution Bench, it was argued by the learned Senior Counsel for some of the respondents that based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the employees, especially 2025:KER:68685 39 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 of the Commercial Taxes Department, should be directed to be regularised since the decisions in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association [(1990) 2 SCC 396], Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SC 118], Jacob M. Puthuparambil [(1991) 1 SCC 28] and Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar [(2001) 3 SCC 574] and the like, have given rise to an expectation in them that their services would also be regularised.

21.1. In Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the Constitution Bench held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked if the decisions of the administrative authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either

(i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn. Lord Diplock in Council for Civil 2025:KER:68685 40 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Services Union v. Minister of Civil Service [1985 AC 374 :

(1984) 3 All ER 935], National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan [(1998) 7 SCC 66] and Dr. Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 3 SCC 485].

There is no case that any assurance was given by the Government or the Department concerned while making the appointment on daily wages that the status conferred on him will not be withdrawn until some rational reason comes into existence for withdrawing it. The very engagement was against the constitutional scheme. Though the Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes Department sought to get the appointments made permanent, there is no case that at the time of appointment any promise was held out. No such promise could also have been held out in view of the circulars and directives issued by the Government after the decision in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association [(1990) 2 SCC 396]. Though there is a case that the State had made regularisations in the past of similarly situated employees, the fact remains that such regularisations were done only pursuant to judicial directions, either of the Administrative Tribunal or that of the High Court and in some cases by the Apex 2025:KER:68685 41 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Court. Moreover, the invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot enable the employees to claim that they must be made permanent or they must be regularised in service, though they had not been selected in terms of the rules for appointment. The fact that, in certain cases, the court had directed regularisation of the employees involved in those cases cannot be made use of to found a claim based on legitimate expectation. The argument, if accepted, would also run counter to the Constitutional mandate. Therefore, the Constitution Bench rejected the arguments of the respondents based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

21.2. In Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the Constitution Bench held that when a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection, as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure 2025:KER:68685 42 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 for selection, and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.

21.3. In Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], before the Constitution Bench, it was contended that the rights of the employees engaged on daily wages, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. It was also contended that the State has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period, in comparison with those directly recruited, who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The Constitution Bench noticed that the employees before the court were engaged on daily wages in the Department concerned, on a 2025:KER:68685 43 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves; they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right for those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on a contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. They cannot be said to be holders of a post, since a regular appointment could be made only by making an appointment consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The right to be treated equally with other employees employed on daily wages cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected 2025:KER:68685 44 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. Therefore, the Constitution Bench overruled the arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

21.4. In Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], before the Constitution Bench, it was contended that the State action in not regularising the employees was not fair, within the framework of the rule of law. The Constitution Bench found that the rule of law compels the State to make appointments as envisaged by the Constitution and in the manner indicated in the earlier paragraphs of the judgment. In most of these cases, no doubt, the employees had worked for some length of time, but this has also been brought about by the pendency of proceedings in tribunals and courts initiated at the instance of the employees. Moreover, accepting an argument of this nature would mean that the State would be permitted to perpetuate an illegality in the matter of public employment, which would be a negation of the constitutional scheme adopted by the court, the people of India. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the argument that there must be a direction to make permanent all the persons employed on daily wages. When the court is approached for relief by way of 2025:KER:68685 45 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 a writ, the court has necessarily to ask itself whether the person before it had any legal right to be enforced. Considered in the light of the constitutional scheme, it cannot be said that the employees have been able to establish a legal right to be made permanent, even though they have never been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

21.5. In Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the Constitution Bench noticed that, normally, what is sought for by temporary employees when they approach the court is a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question to be considered is whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. In the decision in Dr.Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College [1962 Supp (2) SCR 144], which arose out of a refusal to promote the writ petitioner as the Principal of a college, the Constitution Bench held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the 2025:KER:68685 46 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the Government to make them permanent, since the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent.

21.6. In Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the Constitution Bench clarified that there may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments), as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa [AIR 1967 SC 1071], R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507] of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits, in the light of the principles settled by the court in the cases referred to in the judgment of the Constitution Bench and in the light of the said judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State 2025:KER:68685 47 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Governments and their instrumentalities were directed to take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and to further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities were directed to set in motion the process within six months from the date of the judgment. The Constitution Bench clarified that any regularisation, if already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on the judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. In paragraph 54 of the decision, [@ page 42 of SCC], the Constitution Bench clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what has been held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.

2025:KER:68685 48 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024

22. In Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007) 13 SCC 292], another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the appellants were employed on ad hoc basis in several colleges in the State of Punjab. There being a threat of termination of their services, they filed writ petitions before the High Court seeking regularisation, minimum pay scale, and to continue in their present posts until regular appointments are made. All the reliefs were rejected by the High Court. Insofar as the relief to continue them in their present posts until regular incumbents are appointed, the High Court held that the Government will have to follow its policy decision dated 23.07.2001. The Apex Court held that though the appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment as such, it cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale, nor that they should not be continued till regular incumbents are appointed. The course adopted by the High Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement, which is not at all appropriate for these persons, who have gained experience, which will be more beneficial and 2025:KER:68685 49 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 useful to the colleges concerned, rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis. Therefore, the Apex Court set aside the orders made by the High Court to the extent the same deny the claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in service till regular incumbents are appointed. The Apex Court directed that the appellants shall be continued in service till regular appointments are made, on a minimum of the pay scale.

23. In Manish Gupta v. Jan Bhagidari Samiti [(2022) 15 SCC 540], another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the State of Madhya Pradesh, vide notification dated 30.09.1996, started a scheme known as "Jan Bhagidari Scheme", as per which, the Government had decided that the local management of the Government colleges was to be handed over to a Committee, namely, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, to ensure public participation in the Government colleges. Vide Government order dated 05.10.2001, the State Government decided to commence some courses on a self- financing basis. For such courses, the appointments were to be made on a contractual/tenure basis, and the honorarium of the 2025:KER:68685 50 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 teachers and other staff was to be decided by the said Committee. In pursuance to the said Scheme, an advertisement came to be published in the year 2014, for the appointment of teachers as guest faculty, for the academic year 2014-15 in different colleges. The writ petitioners, having the requisite qualifications, applied to the advertised posts, in pursuance to the said advertisement. Upon their selection by the duly constituted Committee, they were appointed. After the end of the academic year, they were discontinued from service. Fresh advertisements were issued for the next academic year 2015-16. Being aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners approached the High Court. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 29.09.2016 in Writ Petition (Civil)No.4716 of 2016, whereby it was ordered that the writ petitioners would continue to work on their respective posts till regular selections were made. It was also ordered that the writ petitioners were entitled to get the salary in accordance with the UGC Circular issued in February 2010. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the State Government, as well as the President of the respective Jan Bhagidari Samitis, preferred writ appeals before the Division Bench. The Division Bench of the High 2025:KER:68685 51 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Court, by the judgment dated 08.02.2017 - State of M.P. v. Ramveer Singh Gurjar [2017 SCC OnLine MP 1606]

- allowed the writ appeals and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved, appeals by way of special leave were filed before the Apex Court.

23.1. In Manish Gupta [(2022) 15 SCC 540], before the Apex Court, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants were duly qualified and were selected in accordance with a due selection process and were required to undergo the selection process in every academic year. The modus operandi of the Government colleges was to engage the services of the appellants at the beginning of the academic session and to discontinue them at the end of the academic session, and again to issue fresh advertisements for the next academic session. In response to the same, the candidates were again required to follow the selection process to get appointed. Though there was sufficient workload for regular posts, the appellants were deprived of regular employment. In any case, the appellants have not sought for regularisation. The only relief claimed was for the continuation of their services till duly selected 2025:KER:68685 52 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 candidates were appointed. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court went wrong in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. On the other hand, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India submitted that the appellants were appointed in accordance with the Jan Bhagidari Scheme. Under the said Scheme, the Government colleges were required to run various courses on a self-financing basis. The expenditure for the same was to be met from the tuition fees received from the students. The appointments of appellants were neither ad hoc nor temporary. Their services were as Guest Lecturers and were on a contractual basis for 11 months. The requirement of Guest Lecturers was from year to year, based on the number of students available for particular course(s). The said Scheme itself provides for the appointment of lecturers on a guest faculty basis, and as such, since the appellants have chosen not to challenge the said Scheme, the Division Bench rightly allowed the writ appeals and dismissed the writ petitions.

23.2. In Manish Gupta [(2022) 15 SCC 540], the Apex Court noticed that a perusal of Annexure A2 advertisement dated 24.06.2016 issued by the Principal, Government Kamla Raja Girls 2025:KER:68685 53 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Post Graduate Autonomous College, Gwalior and Annexure P3 advertisement dated 02.07.2016 issued by the Principal, SMS Government Model Science College, Gwalior would show that the appointments were to be made after the candidates had gone through due selection procedure. From the nature of the advertisements, it could be seen that the appellants were appointed on an ad hoc basis and not as Guest Lecturers, as urged by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India. It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee, and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC 43] and Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007) 13 SCC 292]. In that view of the matter, the Apex Court found that no error was committed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by directing the writ petitioners to continue to work on their respective posts till regular selections are made. However, the Apex Court found that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioners would be entitled to get the salary in accordance with the UGC Circular is not sustainable, since 2025:KER:68685 54 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 the advertisements clearly provided that the selected candidates would be paid the honorarium to be determined by the Jan Bhagidari Samiti. The Apex Court found substance in the submission made on behalf of the respondent State that continuation of the appellants would depend on the number of students offering themselves for the courses concerned. In that view of the matter, the Apex Court allowed the appeals in part.

24. In Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC 43], the question which came up for consideration before a Two- Judge Bench of the Apex Court was whether it is open to the State of Haryana to appoint teachers on an ad hoc basis at the commencement of an academic year and terminate their services before the commencement of the next summer vacation, or earlier, to appoint them again on an ad hoc basis at the commencement of next academic year and to terminate their services before the commencement of the succeeding summer vacation or earlier and to continue to do so year after year. A substantial number of such ad hoc appointments were made in the existing vacancies which have remained unfilled for three to four years.

2025:KER:68685 55 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 24.1. In Rattan Lal [(1985) 4 SCC 43], the Apex Court noticed that it is the duty of the State Government to take steps to appoint teachers in the vacancies in accordance with the rules as early as possible. The State Government have failed to discharge that duty in the cases at hand. It has been appointing teachers for quite some time on an ad hoc basis for short periods, without any justifiable reason. In some cases, the appointments are made for a period of six months only, and they are renewed after a break of a few days. The number of teachers in the State of Haryana, who are thus appointed on an ad hoc basis, is very large. If the teachers have been appointed regularly, they would have been entitled to the benefits of summer vacation along with the salary and allowances payable in respect of that period and to all other privileges, such as casual leave, medical leave, maternity leave, etc., available to all Government servants. These benefits are denied to the ad hoc teachers unreasonably, on account of the pernicious system of appointment adopted by the State Government. The ad hoc teachers are unnecessarily subjected to an arbitrary "hiring and firing" policy. These teachers, who constitute the bulk of the educated unemployed, are compelled to 2025:KER:68685 56 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 accept these jobs on an ad hoc basis with miserable conditions of service. The Government appears to be exploiting this situation. This is not a sound personnel policy. It is bound to have serious repercussions on the educational institutions and the children studying there. The Apex Court found that the policy of "ad hocism" followed by the State Government for a long period has led to the breach of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be permitted to last any longer. The State Government is expected to function as a model employer. Therefore, the Apex Court directed the State Government to take immediate steps to fill up, in accordance with the relevant rules, the vacancies in which teachers appointed on an ad hoc basis are now working, and to allow all those teachers, who are now holding these posts on ad hoc basis, to remain in those posts till the vacancies are duly filled up. The teachers, who are working on such ad hoc basis, if they have the prescribed qualification, may also apply for being appointed regularly in those posts. The State Government was directed to consider sympathetically the question of relaxing the qualification of maximum age prescribed for appointment to those posts, in the case of those who have been 2025:KER:68685 57 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 victims of this system of "ad hoc" appointments. It was also ordered that, if any of the petitioners has under any existing rule acquired the right to be treated as a regularly appointed teacher, their case shall be considered by the State Government, and an appropriate order may be passed in their case. It was also ordered that the "ad hoc" teachers shall be paid salary and allowances for the period of summer vacation as long as they hold the office under the order of the Apex Court, and that those who are entitled to maternity or medical leave shall also be granted such leave in accordance with the rules.

25. In Jaggo v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 : 2024 KHC OnLine 6750], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court noticed that it is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in Government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the 2025:KER:68685 58 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] does not intend to penalise employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said decision sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. While the decision sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees.

26. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Deputy Examiner for Local Fund Audit [2025 KHC OnLine 1782], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants- petitioners in W.A.Nos.1664 of 2024, 1694 of 2024 and 1842 of 2024, a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, was dealing with an application filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, seeking permission to regularise the services of three daily wage employees who were working as Part-time Kazhakam/Thali under the Board, those employees has completed five years of service before 31.03.2012.

2025:KER:68685 59 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 By the judgment dated 31.05.2012 in W.P.(C)No.6021 of 2011, a Division Bench of this Court granted permission to the Board to regularise daily wage employees who had completed five years of service as on 31.03.2012. While 28 other similarly situated employees were regularised pursuant to the said judgment of the Division Bench, the names of the above three employees were inadvertently omitted from the list for regularisation. The question that came up for consideration before the Division Bench was whether the omission on the part of the Travancore Devaswom Board to include the name of the above three employees in the list prepared following the earlier judgment of the Division Bench would deny them regularisation, when 28 other daily wage employees who were similarly situated were regularised.

26.1. In Travancore Devaswom Board [2025 KHC OnLine 1782], the Division Bench noticed that the extent, ambit and applicability of the principles of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] were explained in Jaggo [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826]. The Apex Court proceeded to hold in Jaggo [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826] that while the judgment in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] 2025:KER:68685 60 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhering to Constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between 'illegal' and 'irregular' appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularisation as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] to argue that no vested right for regularisation exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgement of cases where regularisation is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponising it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. In Official 2025:KER:68685 61 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Liquidator v. Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1], the Three-Judge Bench held that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] cannot be diluted by Benches of lesser strength. The modification attempted to be brought about by a Bench of Two-Judges of the Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey [(2007) 11 SCC 92] was held to be obiter dictum as well. But the 1999 Scheme evolved by the Government for absorption of the company-paid staff only to the extent of 50% vacancies in the direct recruitment quota of Group C posts, was held to be not unconstitutional. As such, it cannot be said that the ratio in Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1] will stand in the way of considering the claim of respondents No.3 to 5 in the application filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board.

27. In Pawan Kumar v. Union of India [2016 SCC OnLine HP 2696 : 2017 (3) KLT SN 47], a decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science and Technology, a Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court considered the question whether an employee, who is appointed purely on contractual basis for a fixed tenure in accordance with a non-statutory scheme, i.e., Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health 2025:KER:68685 62 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Scheme, which provides for appointment of staff on contract basis, can claim that his appointment be made co-terminus with the scheme or in the alternative his services be continued till the age of superannuation or would his services be liable to be terminated on the expiry of the period of contract, as provided for in the scheme. As per Para.8(d) of the said scheme, the employment of the staff will be entirely contractual in nature and will normally be for a period of two years at the maximum, subject to review of their conduct and performance after twelve months. In pursuance of the said scheme, all the petitioners have been appointed on different dates on a contractual basis, and their services have been dispensed with, on cessation of their contractual period. Feeling aggrieved, they have filed the writ petitions. Before the Full Bench, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that ad hoc or temporary employees cannot be replaced by other ad hoc or temporary employees and placed heavy reliance upon the observation made in the decision of the Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], more particularly, paragraph 46 that an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee;

2025:KER:68685 63 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.

27.1. In Pawan Kumar [2016 SCC OnLine HP 2696], the Full Bench found that the aforesaid ratio in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] is not clearly applicable to the facts obtaining in the cases at hand, as it cannot be disputed that the petitioners were selected and thereafter appointed pursuant to an advertisement, which never envisaged appointment on permanent basis and were to be appointed only on contractual basis. Once the appointments were purely contractual, then by efflux of time as envisaged in the contract itself the same came to an end and the persons holding such posts can have no right to continue or renewal of the contract of service as a matter of right, and therefore, such cases are clearly distinguishable from repeated and ad hoc appointments, which was adopted as a matter of practice by the State Government in case of Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118]. The difference in the fact situation obtaining in the cases at hand vis- à-vis Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] is stark and clear. In the cases at hand, the petitioners were appointed on a fixed-term 2025:KER:68685 64 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 contract. After the lapse of the period of service, they are claiming continuity of the same. Therefore, their services cannot be equated with the ad hoc employment as in the case of Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118]. The ad hoc appointment against a vacancy by the State, repeated with a number of vacancies, one after another, was construed to be an unfair practice by the Apex Court, and it accordingly directed the State to frame a scheme for regularisation of such employees consistent with the reservation policy, if not already framed. Therefore, the judgment in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] cannot be blindly applied to the facts of the cases at hand, where the petitioners have been appointed on a fixed-term contractual appointment and after lapse of the period of contract, are claiming the continuation of the term by excluding other persons from seeking a similar term of appointment. The Full Bench noticed that the petitioners had voluntarily accepted the appointment granted to them, subject to the conditions clearly stipulated in the scheme. These appointments, subject to the conditions, have been accepted with their eyes wide open; therefore, now the petitioners cannot turn around and claim higher rights, ignoring the conditions subject to 2025:KER:68685 65 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 which the appointments were accepted. The Full Bench answered the question referred to it by holding that the petitioners, who have been appointed purely on contractual basis for a fixed term, in accordance with the non-statutory scheme, have no right to claim higher right than what is envisaged in their contract of the appointment and the same would automatically come to an end by efflux of time in terms of the contract. The petitioners holding such posts have no right to continue or claim renewal of the contract, save and except, if so provided in the scheme itself. Therefore, they cannot lay claim that the appointments be made co-terminus with the scheme or, in the alternative, that their services be continued till they attain the age of superannuation.

28. In State of Maharashtra v. Anita [(2016) 8 SCC 293], a decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science and Technology, a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing a batch of appeals filed against the order dated 28.03.2012 of the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Bombay - Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra [2012 SCC OnLine Bom 478] - whereby 471 posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors created by Government 2025:KER:68685 66 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006 for appointment on contractual basis under the Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai, were held to be permanent in nature. The Apex Court noticed that, in the Government Resolution dated 21.08.2006, while creating 471 posts in various cadres, including Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors, in Clause (3) of the said Resolution, it was made clear that the posts created ought to be filled up on a contractual basis. Clause (3) reads as under:

"The said posts, instead of being filled in the regular manner, should be kept vacant and should be filled on the contract basis as per the terms and conditions prescribed by the Government or having prepared the Recruitment Rules, should be filled as per the provisions therein."

Subsequently, the said Resolution was modified by Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006. In the said Resolution, the column specifying "Pay Scale" was substituted with the column "Combined Permissible Monthly Pay + Telephone & Travel Expenses". However, there was no change in the decision of the Government on filling up the posts on a contractual basis. The Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006 stipulates the terms and conditions 2025:KER:68685 67 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 of the contractual appointments. Clauses A, B, C and D read as under:

"A. The appointment of the said posts would be completely on contractual basis. These officers/employees would not be counted as government employees.

B. The said appointments should be made on contract basis, firstly for 11 months. After 11 months, the term of the agreement could be increased from time to time if necessary. Whereas, the appointing authority would take the precaution while extending the terms in this manner that, at one time, this term should not be more than 11 months. The appointment in this way could be made maximum three times. Thereafter, if the competent authority is of the opinion that the reappointment of such candidate is necessary then such candidate would have to again face the selection process.

C. The appointing authority concerned at the time of the appointment would execute an agreement with the candidate concerned in the prescribed format. The prescribed format of the agreement is given in Appendix 'B'. It would be the responsibility of the office concerned to preserve all the documents of the agreement. D. Except for the combined pay and permissible telephone and travel expenses (more than the abovementioned limit), any other allowances would not be admissible for the officers/employees being appointed on contract basis."

28.1. In Anita [(2016) 8 SCC 293], the Three-Judge Bench 2025:KER:68685 68 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 found that the intention of the State Government to fill up the posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors on a contractual basis is manifest from the above clauses in Government Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006. While creating 471 posts vide Resolution dated 21.08.2006, the Government made it clear that the posts should be filled up on a contractual basis as per the terms and conditions prescribed by the Government. As per Clause 'B' of the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006, the initial contractual period of appointment is eleven months, and there is a provision for extension of contract for further eleven months. Clause 'B' makes it clear that the appointment could be made maximum three times, and extension of the contract beyond the third term is not allowed. If the competent authority is of the opinion that the reappointment of such candidates is necessary, then such candidates would again have to face the selection process. The respondents at the time of appointment have accepted an agreement in accordance with Appendix 'B' attached to the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006. The terms of the agreement specifically lay down that the appointment is purely contractual and that the respondents 2025:KER:68685 69 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 will not be entitled to claim any rights, interests and benefits whatsoever of permanent service in the Government. In paragraph 16 of the decision, the Apex Court extracted the relevant clauses in the format of the agreement. The Apex Court found that the above terms of the agreement further reiterate the stand of the State that the appointments were purely contractual and that the respondents shall not be entitled to claim any right or interest of permanent service in the Government. The appointments of the respondents were made initially for eleven months, but were renewed twice, and after serving the maximum contractual period, the services of the respondents came to an end, and the Government initiated a fresh process of selection. The conditions of the respondents' engagement are governed by the terms of agreement. Therefore, the Apex Court held that, after having accepted the contractual appointment, the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment. Furthermore, the respondents are not precluded from applying for the said posts afresh, subject to the satisfaction of other eligibility criteria. The creation of posts was only for administrative purposes for sanction of the amount towards expenditure incurred, but 2025:KER:68685 70 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 merely because the posts were created, they cannot be held to be permanent in nature. When the Government has taken a policy decision to fill up 471 posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors on a contractual basis, the Tribunal and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the policy decision to hold that the appointments are permanent in nature.

29. In Yogesh Mahajan v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences [(2018) 3 SCC 218], a decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science and Technology, a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the petitioner was initially engaged on a contract basis as a Technical Assistant (ENT) in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in 1998. The initial contract was for a period of three months, but it was renewed from time to time, without any artificial breaks, on a quarterly or a six-monthly basis. It appears that the services of the petitioner were taken on a contract basis without following any laid-down procedure and without adherence to any rules. The contract of the petitioner was finally extended from 01.01.2010 to 30.06.2010. When the contract of the petitioner was not renewed after 30.06.2010, he approached the 2025:KER:68685 71 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.4104 of 2010. The OA was subsequently amended, but the essential prayer of the petitioner was to the effect that the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, declining to extend his contract ad hoc appointment by a further period of six months ought to be quashed. By the order dated 25.07.2011 the Central Administrative Tribunal declined to grant the relief to the petitioner on the ground that it had no right to an extension of his services and further, he had no right to be regularised as a Technical Assistant since his appointment on a contractual basis or on an ad hoc basis was made without following any laid down procedure and without following any rules. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a review petition, which ended in dismissal. The petitioner preferred a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which also ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 19.12.2011, holding that reliance placed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] was correct. The High Court has also recorded the submission of the learned counsel for All 2025:KER:68685 72 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 India Institute of Medical Sciences that no contract employee in the ENT Department had been granted an extension after 01.01.2009. The petitioner preferred a review petition, which also ended in dismissal by the order dated 24.01.2012. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached the Apex Court.

29.1. In Yogesh Mahajan [(2018) 3 SCC 218], the Two- Judge Bench found that it is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. That being so, the Apex Court was in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was unable to show any statutory or other right to have his contract extended beyond 30.06.2010. At best, the petitioner could claim that the authorities concerned should consider extending his contract. The Apex Court found that, in fact, due consideration was given to this and in spite of a favourable recommendation having been made, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences did not find it appropriate or necessary to continue with his services on a contractual basis. The Apex Court found no arbitrariness in the view taken by the authorities concerned and therefore rejected this contention of the petitioner. The Apex Court was also in 2025:KER:68685 73 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 agreement with the view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appointment of the petitioner on a contractual basis or on an ad hoc basis was made in accordance with any regular procedure or by following the necessary rules. That being so, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner for regularisation of his services. The decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] does not advance the case of the petitioner.

30. In Santhosh K.V. v. Malabar Regional Co-

operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2018 SCC OnLine Ker 1234 : 2018 (2) KLJ 837], a decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science and Technology, which was one rendered by one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] while sitting single, the petitioner, who was engaged as Plant Attender on contract basis in the Kannur Diary of the Malabar Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., which is a Co- operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, filed the writ petition seeking a writ of 2025:KER:68685 74 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 mandamus commanding the respondent to regularise him in the post of Plant Attender; and other consequential reliefs, including a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent not to replace him with other temporary employees. According to the petitioner, though he is working on a contract basis, he is being paid all the benefits of a regular employee, such as EPF, ESI, etc. The extension of the engagement of the petitioner on several occasions itself proves that he is efficient and capable of doing the work and as such, he is entitled for regularisation. The petitioner made several requests for regularisation, which were not considered by the respondent for one reason or another. Now the respondent is trying to terminate the petitioner from the post of Plant Attender, in order to accommodate another temporary employee, which is illegal and arbitrary, since a temporary employee can only be replaced by a permanent employee. Since no steps have been taken by the respondent to appoint a permanent employee, the petitioner is entitled to continue as Plant Attender till a permanent employee is appointed to that post. On the other hand, the respondent contended that they are following two separate procedures for engagement of Plant Attenders on 2025:KER:68685 75 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 fixed period contract basis and for appointment on permanent basis. The District Employment Exchange of the concerned district maintains separate lists of candidates with separate seniority for being considered for contract engagement as well as for permanent appointment. On receipt of the list for contract employment from the District Employment Exchange, an interview is conducted, and the final select list is prepared from which candidates are engaged as Plant Attenders on a fixed period contract. For appointment on a permanent basis, on receipt of the name of the candidates from a separate list maintained by the District Employment Exchange for permanent appointment, those candidates are subjected to written test, physical test and interview. On the basis of the rank in that rank list, the selected candidates are given permanent appointment as Plant Attender Grade III in the scale of pay of Rs. 8500-19940. If Plant Attenders engaged on fixed period contract through the Employment Exchange have sufficient seniority in the list prepared by the Employment Exchange for permanent appointment, they can take part in the selection process for permanent appointment. The respondent would also contend that, the maximum duration of 2025:KER:68685 76 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 engagements on fixed period contracts for a candidate (total of all terms put together) is fixed as four years or till permanent appointment is made, whichever is earlier, as a matter of policy.

30.1. In Santhosh K.V. [2018 SCC OnLine Ker 1234], the Court noticed that the engagement of the petitioner as Plant Attender in the Kannur Diary of the respondent Society was on fixed period contracts, on daily rated - casual basis, which is evident from Exts.P1, P3, R1(b), R1(c), R1(d) and R1(e) proceedings of the Dairy Manager. The fact that the petitioner had completed four years of engagement as Plant Attender on a contract basis (total of all terms put together) as on 31.1.2018 is not in dispute. The petitioner has also not disputed the fact that the respondent is following two separate procedures for engagement of Plant Attenders on fixed period contract basis and for appointment on permanent basis. The fixed period contract appointments of the petitioner as Plant Attender on daily rated basis was based on the select list prepared by the respondent after conducting an interview. On the other hand, for permanent appointment, the candidates are subjected to written test, physical test and interview and the selected candidates, based on 2025:KER:68685 77 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 their rank in that rank list, are given permanent appointment as Plant Attender Grade III in the scale of pay of Rs.8500-19940.

30.2. In Santhosh K.V. [2018 SCC OnLine Ker 1234], the Court noticed that in Accounts Officer (A&I) APSRTC v. K.V. Ramana [(2007) 2 SCC 324] the Apex Court reiterated that, as held by the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees dehors the rules and constitutional scheme of public employment cannot be granted by the courts. Even if the contract labourers or casual workers or ad hoc employees have worked for a long period they cannot be regularised dehors the rules for selection, as has been held in Uma Devi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. In State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal [(2011) 2 SCC 429] the Apex Court reiterated that, the High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. In Yogesh 2025:KER:68685 78 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Mahajan v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences [(2018) 3 SCC 218], the Apex Court reiterated that an employee appointed on contract basis has no right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. On the fats of the case at hand, the Court noticed that the petitioner could not point out any rule or regulation framed by the respondent on the basis of which he claims regularisation in the post of Plant Attender or continuance in that post till a permanent appointment is made to that post. It is well settled that unless there exists some rule or regulation having statutory force, no writ or direction can be issued by this Court for regularisation or continuance of a casual, ad hoc, contract or daily rated employee.

30.3. In Santhosh K.V. [2018 SCC OnLine Ker 1234], the Court held that once the appointment was purely contractual, then by efflux of time as envisaged in the contract itself, the same came to an end and the persons holding such a post can have no legal right to continue or renew the contract of service as a matter of right. The petitioner had voluntarily accepted the engagement as Plant Attender, on a daily rated basis, pursuant to Exts.P1, P3, R1(b), R1(c), R1(d) and R1(e) proceedings, subject to the 2025:KER:68685 79 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 conditions clearly stipulated therein. Having accepted such engagements with eyes wide open, the petitioner cannot now turn around and claim higher rights, ignoring the conditions subject to which such engagements have been accepted.

30.4. In Santhosh K.V. [2018 SCC OnLine Ker 1234], relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007) 13 SCC 292] the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and as such he is entitled to continue as Plant Attender on daily rated basis even after 31.1.2018, i.e., even after the expiry of the period of appointment in Ext.P3. The Court noticed that in Hargurpratap Singh [(2007) 13 SCC 292] the Apex Court was dealing with the claim made by the appellants therein, who were ad hoc Lecturers in the colleges in the State of Punjab (as discernible from the order dated 25.8.2005 in I.A. No. 3 of 2004 in Civil Appeal No. 8745 of 2003), for regularisation, minimum pay sale and to continue in their posts until regular incumbents are appointed. There being a threat of termination of services, the appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court. All the reliefs were rejected 2025:KER:68685 80 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 by the High Court, and so far as the relief to continue in their respective posts until regular incumbents are appointed is concerned, the High Court has stated that the Government will have to follow its policy decision dated 23.7.2001. The Apex Court held that, the course adopted by the High Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate for the appellants who have gained experience which will be more beneficial and useful to the colleges concerned, rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis. The ratio in Hargurpratap Singh [(2007) 13 SCC 292] has no application to the facts obtaining in the instant case, as the petitioner is not holding a teaching post. Further, the appointment of the petitioner is purely contractual in nature. Once the appointment of the petitioner was purely contractual, for a fixed period, then by efflux of time as envisaged in that contract itself, the same came to an end on 31.1.2018, and the petitioner holding such a post can have no legal right to continue or renew the contract of service as a matter of right. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to regularise him in the post of Plant Attender or to 2025:KER:68685 81 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 permit him to continue in that post till a regular hand joins duty.

31. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Paramjeet Singh [(2019) 6 SCC 250], a decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science and Technology, a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the respondent was appointed as a conductor on a contractual basis on 21.01.2006 by the appellant. The contractual appointment was for a period of one year or until the shortage of drivers was met, whichever was earlier. The services of the respondent were dispensed with on 21.03.2007. Challenging the order of termination, the respondent filed a writ petition, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on 06.04.2016. The sole ground on which the writ petition was allowed was that there was a breach of the principle of natural justice. The writ appeal was dismissed on 19.09.2016 by the Division Bench of the High Court. Before the Apex Court, the appellant contended that the High Court was in error, having regard to the fact that the nature of the appointment was purely contractual for a period of one year or until the shortage of drivers was met, whichever was earlier. Moreover, the 2025:KER:68685 82 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 contract stipulates that the services of the respondent could be dispensed with without any notice. The Apex Court found that the terms of the appointment indicate that the respondent was on a purely contractual appointment, and that the services could be dispensed with without notice at any stage. The learned Single Judge of the High Court relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Hari Ram Maurya v. Union of India [(2006) 9 SCC 167], which is, however, distinguishable since it was found in that case that the removal was on the ground that the employee, though he was engaged on a temporary basis, was guilty of a charge of bribery. Having regard to the terms of the contractual engagement, the Apex Court found that the action of the appellant cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2016 of the High Court and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent.

32. On the question as to whether the appellants- petitioners can claim to continue their service even after the expiry of the period specified in the notification and the contracts they have separately entered into with the University, in the impugned 2025:KER:68685 83 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 judgment dated 15.10.2024 the learned Single Judge held that the petitioners do not have the right to continue in the posts after the completion of the terms specified in the respective contracts entered with the University unless the said term is extended by the University. The learned Single Judge held further that all the petitioners will have the right to participate in the selection process notified as per the notification dated 01.10.2023 or any other notifications, irrespective of the length of service they have already completed under contract employment with the University. The University shall provide preference by way of additional grace marks for the services already rendered by the respective petitioners while conducting the selection process for subsequent appointments, if not already provided, by adopting a reasonable criteria determined by the University.

33. As already noticed hereinbefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners in the writ appeals is that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in declining the relief that the appellants-petitioners shall not be replaced with another set of temporary hands. The contentions raised by the petitioners, relying on the decisions of the Apex 2025:KER:68685 84 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Court in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], Hargurpratap Singh (2007) 13 SCC 292], Manish Gupta [(2022) 15 SCC 540], etc., were not properly understood and considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel has also relied on various decisions of the High Court in which the observation contained in paragraph 49 of the decision of the Apex Court in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] was followed and also the decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], Jaggo [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826] and Travancore Devaswom Board [2025 KHC OnLine 1782]. In this context, we notice that it is not the case of the appellants-petitioners that the appellants are entitled for regularisation of their service as Assistant Professors in various departments in the Engineering Colleges under the Cochin University of Science and Technology in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], Jaggo [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826], etc. The case of the appellants-petitioners is that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 46 of the decision of the Apex Court in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] that an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc 2025:KER:68685 85 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 or temporary employee and that he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee, the appellants have a right to continue in the respective posts after completion of the terms specified in the respective contracts entered with the University.

34. A reading of the decision of the Apex Court in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] would show that in the said decision the Apex Court was considering the sustainability of certain directions issued by the High Court of Panjab and Haryana in the light of various orders passed by the State Haryana and State of Panjab for the absorption of its ad hoc or temporary employees and daily-wagers or casual labourers. In the said decision the Apex Court followed the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association [(1990) 2 SCC 396] and Jacob M. Puthuparambil [(1991) 1 SCC 28]. The Apex Court found that the direction by the High Court that all those ad hoc/temporary employees who have continued for more than a year should be regularised has been given without reference to the existence of a vacancy. Though persons belonging to those categories, continuing over a number of years, have a right to claim 2025:KER:68685 86 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 regularisation and the authorities are under an obligation to consider their case for regularisation in a fair manner, keeping in view the principles enunciated in the decisions on the point, the blanket direction given by the High Court cannot be sustained. In paragraphs 45 to 50 of the decision in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] the Apex Court made certain observations, which each Government or authority should bear in mind while devising its own criteria or principles for regularisation of ad hoc or temporary employees in Government service. The appellants-petitioners are placing reliance on the observation contained in paragraph 46 of the said decision, which reads thus;

"46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority."

A reading of the above observation made by the Apex Court in paragraph 46 of the decision in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] would make it explicitly clear that the Apex Court made such an observation since it is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.

2025:KER:68685 87 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024

35. In the instant case the appellants-petitioners are not temporary employees, daily wagers or casual labourers. The appellants-petitioners are working as Assistant Professors, on contract basis, in various departments in the Engineering Colleges under the Cochin University of Science and Technology. The appointment of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it are governed by the provisions under the Regulations made by the University Grants Commission in exercise of its powers under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The said Regulations deals with direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors in the Universities and Colleges and also appointments on contract basis.

36. In exercise of the powers conferred under clause (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and in supersession of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications Required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000, together with all amendments made therein from time to time, the University Grants Commission made the University Grants Commission 2025:KER:68685 88 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 (Minimum qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (Regulation No.F.3-1/2009 dated 30th June, 2010).

36.1. As per Clause 1.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, the regulations shall apply to every University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every Institution, including a constituent or an affiliated college recognised by the Commission, in consultation with the University concerned under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every Institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act. The Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), which was initially constituted as the University of Cochin, through a State Act, i.e., the Cochin University Act, 1971, which was reorganised vide the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986, redefining its objectives as promoting Graduate and Post‐Graduate studies and Advanced Research in Applied Sciences, Technology, Industry, Commerce, Management and Social Sciences. As per Clause 3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, the consequences of 2025:KER:68685 89 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 failure of the Universities to comply with the recommendations of the Commission are as provided under Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 36.2. Clause 3.0.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 deals with recruitment and Qualifications. As per Clause 3.1.0, the direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors in the Universities and Colleges shall be on the basis of merit through all India advertisement and selections by the duly constituted Selection Committees as per the provisions made under the Regulations to be incorporated under the Statutes/Ordinances of the concerned University. The composition of such committees should be as prescribed by the Commission in the Regulations.

36.3. Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 deals with appointments on contract basis. As per Clause 13.1, the teachers should be appointed on contract basis only when it is absolutely necessary and when the student-teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid-down norms. In any case, the number of such appointments should not exceed 10% of the total number of faculty positions in a College/University. The qualifications and selection procedure for 2025:KER:68685 90 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 appointing them should be the same as those applicable to a regularly appointed teacher. The fixed emoluments paid to such contract teachers should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. Such appointments should not be made initially for more than one academic session, and the performance of any such entrant teacher should be reviewed for academic performance before reappointing him/her on contract basis for another session.

37. In exercise of the powers conferred under clause (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 read with Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and in supersession of the University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 together with all amendments made therein from time to time, the University Grants Commission made the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) 2025:KER:68685 91 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Regulations, 2018.

37.1. As per Clause 1.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the regulations shall apply to every University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognised by the Commission, in consultation with the University concerned under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act. As per Clause 3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, if any University contravenes the provisions of these Regulations, the Commission, after taking into consideration the cause, if any, shown by the University for such failure or contravention, may withhold from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the Fund of the Commission.

37.2. Clause 3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 deals with recruitment and Qualifications. As per Clause 3.1, direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in the Universities and Colleges, and Senior Professor in the Universities, shall be on the basis of merit through an all-India advertisement, followed by selection by a duly 2025:KER:68685 92 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 constituted Selection Committee as per the provisions made under the Regulations. Clause 3.1 mandates that these provisions shall be incorporated in the Statutes/Ordinances of the University concerned. The composition of such a committee shall be as specified in the Regulations.

37.3. Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 deals with appointments on contract basis. As per Clause 13.0, the teachers should be appointed on contract basis only when it is absolutely necessary and when the student-teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid-down norms. In any case, the number of such appointments should not exceed 10% of the total number of faculty positions in a College/University. The qualifications and selection procedure for appointing them should be the same as those applicable to a regularly appointed teacher. The fixed emoluments paid to such contract teachers should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. Such appointments should not be made initially for more than one academic session, and the performance of any such entrant teacher should be reviewed for academic performance before reappointing him/her on contract basis for another session. Such appointments on 2025:KER:68685 93 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 contract basis may also be resorted to when absolutely necessary to fill vacancies arising due to maternity leave, child-care leave, etc.

38. As per the mandate of the statutory provisions contained in the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and also that contained in the UGC Regulations, 2010, followed by the UGC Regulations, 2018, any direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors or appointments on contract basis in various departments in the Engineering Colleges under the Cochin University of Science and Technology, which was initially constituted as the University of Cochin, through a State Act, i.e., the Cochin University Act, 1971, which was reorganised vide the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986, have to be made as per the mandate of the provisions contained in the UGC Regulations, 2010, which was followed by the UGC Regulations, 2018. For the posts of Assistant Professor in the Universities and Colleges, the method prescribed in Clause 3.1.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and Clause 3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 is direct recruitment on the basis of merit through an all-India advertisement, followed by selection by a duly 2025:KER:68685 94 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 constituted Selection Committee as per the provisions under the said Regulations. Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 make specific provisions for appointments on contract basis. As already noticed hereinbefore, as per Clause 13.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the teachers should be appointed on contract basis only when it is absolutely necessary and when the student-teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid-down norms. In any case, the number of such appointments should not exceed 10% of the total number of faculty positions in a College/University. The qualifications and selection procedure for appointing them should be the same as those applicable to a regularly appointed teacher. The fixed emoluments paid to such contract teachers should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. Such appointments should not be made initially for more than one academic session, and the performance of any such entrant teacher should be reviewed for academic performance before reappointing him/her on contract basis for another session.

39. In view of the provisions contained in the UGC 2025:KER:68685 95 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Regulations, 2010, which was followed by the UGC Regulations, 2018, the Cochin University of Science and Technology can make appointments on contract basis to the posts of Assistant Professors in various Departments in the Engineering Colleges under the said University strictly in terms of the aforesaid provisions contained in the Regulations made by the University Grants Commission in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Any failure on the part of the Cochin University of Science and Technology to comply with the provisions contained in the UGC Regulations, 2010, which was followed by the UGC Regulations, 2018 will attract the consequences provided in Clause 3 of the said Regulations.

40. As per the mandate of Clase 13.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the contract appointments of teachers made, when the student- teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid down norms, should not be made initially for more than one academic session, and the performance of any such entrant teacher should be reviewed for academic performance before reappointing him/her on contract 2025:KER:68685 96 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 basis for another session. In view of the specific provision contained in Clause 13.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 the contract appointment of an Assistant Professor in a department in an Engineering College under the Cochin University of Science and Technology should not be for more than one academic session and the reappointment on contract basis, after reviewing the academic performance, shall be for another academic session.

41. When the UGC Regulations issued in exercise of the powers under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 prescribe the period of contract appointment as well as the period of reappointment on contract basis as Assistant Professor in Universities and affiliated Colleges, placing reliance on the observation made by the Apex Court in paragraph 46 of the decision in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] that an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee and that he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee, the appellants-petitioners cannot contend that even after the expiry of their term of appointment/ reappointment as Assistant Professors on contract basis, they 2025:KER:68685 97 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 should be retained in their respective posts by granting extension of their appointments until regular appointments are made by the University based on a selection process.

42. As already noticed hereinbefore, a reading of the observation made in paragraph 46 of the decision in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] would make it explicitly clear that the Apex Court made such an observation since it is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. When the appointment as well as reappointment of an Assistant Professor on contract basis has to be made after conducting a process of selection as per the requirements of the provisions contained in Clause 3.0.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, which was followed by Clause 3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the observation made by the Apex Court in paragraph 46 of the decision in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] has no application, since the UGC Regulations itself provides a process of selection even for a contract appointment as well as reappointment to avoid any arbitrary action on the part of the University or the affiliated College. Therefore, we hold that the observation made by the Apex Court in paragraph 46 of the decision in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 2025:KER:68685 98 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 SCC 118] in no way supports the claim of the appellants- petitioners that they are entitled to extension of their contract appointments as Assistant Professors until regular appointments are made by the Cochin University of Science and Technology based on a selection process. In that view of the matter this Court need not delve into the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners in W.A.Nos.1664 of 2024, 1694 of 2024 and 1842 of 2024 placing reliance on various decisions of the High Court in which the observation contained in paragraph 49 of the decision of the Apex Court in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] was followed. We also notice the specific stipulation in Clause 13.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which stipulates that the contract appointments of teachers made, when the student-teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid down norms, should not exceed 10% of total number of faculty positions in a College/University.

43. Relying on the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Anita [(2016) 8 SCC 293] and the decision of a Two-Judge Bench in Yogesh Mahajan [(2018) 3 SCC 218] as well as other decisions of the High Court, the learned Standing 2025:KER:68685 99 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 Counsel for Cochin University of Science and Technology raised a contention that no contract employee has a right to have his contract renewed from time to time. When the UGC Regulations issued in exercise of the powers under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 prescribe the period of contract appointment as well as the period of reappointment on contract basis as Assistant Professor in Universities and affiliated Colleges, this Court need not delve into the legal contentions raised on the above aspect in this judgment, as it is unnecessary.

44. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309], the Apex Court held that under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law.

2025:KER:68685 100 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024

45. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259], the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.

46. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the appellants-petitioners cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the Cochin University of Science and Technology to permit them to continue as Assistant Professors on contract basis in the respective departments in the Engineering Colleges under the University, after completion of the term specified in the respective contracts entered with the University, since no mandamus can be issued directing the University to do something contrary to the statutory requirements of the UGC Regulations, 2010, which was followed by the UGC Regulations, 2018, which are made by the University Grants Commission in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Moreover, Clause 3 of 2025:KER:68685 101 W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716, 1736 and 1842 of 2024 the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the UGC Regulations, 2018 provides for the consequences of failure of the Universities to comply with the provisions of the said Regulations.

47. In the above circumstances, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2024 of the learned Single Judge and the directions contained therein, to the extent it is under challenge in these writ appeals.

In the result, these writ appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE bkn/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court