Bombay High Court
Yuvraj Balasaheb Vharamble vs Indian Institute Of Technology Bombay ... on 8 May, 2026
Author: R. I. Chagla
Bench: R. I. Chagla
2026:BHC-AS:22050-DB
Digitally
signed by
PALLAVI
PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
1 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR
WARGAONKAR Date:
2026.05.08
13:33:15
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5148 OF 2026
Yuvraj Balasaheb Vharamble
Residing at - Room No.228,
Type-I Building No.19, Hill Side,
IIT Bombay, Campus
Powari, Mumbai - 400076 ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
Represented by its Director,
I Floor, Nandan Nilekani Main Building.
IIT Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai - 400 076
E-mail - [email protected]
2. The Registrar,
Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
II Floor, Nandan Nilekani Main Building.
IIT Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai - 400 076.
E-mail - [email protected]
3. Section Head, Staff Recruitment
II Floor, Nandan Nilekani Main Building,
IIT Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai - 400 76.
E-mail- [email protected] ...Respondents
-----------------
Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w Adv. Divya Yajurvedi, Adv. Pradeep Kumar for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Naushad Engineer, Senior Counsel a/w Adv. Yohaan Limathwale, Adv.
Hormuz Mehta, Adv. Ahsan Allana i/b. J. Sagar Associates for the
Respondents.
-----------------
Pallavi 1/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
2 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 22nd APRIL, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 8th MAY, 2026
Judgment: (Per Advait M. Sethna, J.):
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief/s:-
"A) This Honorable Court in exercise of powers under Article 226
and/or 227 of the Constitution of India be please to issue a writ
of Mandamus or any other writ of like nature and be please to
call for records and proceedings leading up to passing of
impugned letter dated 13th March, 2026 and thereafter be
pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned letter dated 13 th
March, 2026 issued by the Respondent No.01 to the Petitioner.
B) This Honorable Court in exercise of powers under Article 226
and/or 227 of the Constitution of India be please to Issue the
writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, or
order directing the Respondents to regularize the service of the
petitioner in the post of Deputy Registrar (Legal) and fix the pay
of the Petitioner and to pay arrears the full difference calculated
as - the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible
allowances at the minimum pay-level applicable to the post of
Deputy Registrar (Legal) from time to time, and (b) the
amounts actually paid, for the period of joining in duties till the
date of regularization alongwith promotional benefits with 8%
simple interest per annum on calculated arrears from due date
till actual payment.
OR ALTERNATIVELY
B) Issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction, or order to regularize the service of the petitioner in
his present post Executive Officer (Legal) from the date of his
initial appointment by fixing pay scale as applicable to the post
of Deputy Registrar (Legal) or any other pay scale as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and to pay arrears for the period of
joining in duties till the date of regularization along with
promotional benefits with 8% simple interest per annum on
calculated arrears."
Pallavi 2/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
3 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
3. The Petitioner has been appointed as Executive Officer (Legal) with
the first Respondent purely on contractual basis on such post which is
temporary, in terms of the advertisement dated 8 July 2015. The Petitioner
is primarily aggrieved by the Communication/Order dated 13 March 2026
(Impugned Communication/Order). This was to the effect that his tenure as
Executive Officer (Legal) for a period of one year w.e.f. 24 April 2025 had
come to an end on 23 April 2026. Accordingly, he would not be given any
further extension, to his appointment. The Petitioner has assailed the said
Impugned Communication/Order along with his prayer seeking
regularization in his post of Executive Officer (Legal) and/or Deputy
Registrar (Legal), which forms the fulcrum of the proceedings.
Factual Matrix:-
4. The facts necessary for the adjudication for this Petition are set out
below:-
5. The Petitioner completed LL.B. degree in First Class with distinction
from Shahaji Law College, Kolhapur in April of 2000. The Petitioner
thereafter pursued and completed his LL.M. (Commercial and Criminal
Laws) from Shivaji University, Kolhapur in April of 2002 wherein he secured
50.05% marks in the LL.M. examination.
6. The Respondent No.1 published an advertisement dated 8 July 2015
inviting online application for 1 unreserved post of Executive Officer,
Pallavi 3/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
4 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
Administration, specifying that the post is temporary and that the
appointment would be on a contract for a period of 3 years.
7. The Petitioner on 17 July 2015 successfully submitted an application
for selection to the said post, the receipt of which was duly acknowledged
by the first Respondent.
8. The Petitioner received a call letter on 18 January 2016 from
Assistant Registrar (Admin-I) for the post of Executive Officer (Legal). The
Petitioner then appeared before the Selection Committee for interview on
27 January 2016 and submitted the relevant documents.
9. The Petitioner by a letter dated 8 February 2016 addressed by the
first Respondent offered the Petitioner the position of Executive Officer
(Legal) in the Administration Office on contract basis with the first
Respondent for a period of 3 years.
10. The Petitioner on 9 February 2016 addressed an email to the
Respondents indicating his willingness to accept the offer of appointment
by the first Respondent dated 8 February 2016. The Petitioner joined the
services of the first Respondent as Executive Officer (Legal) on 11 April
2016.
11. The Deputy Registrar (Admin-I) by an office order dated 12 April
2017 communicated the enhanced consolidated salary of the Petitioner,
clarifying that all other terms and conditions of his assignment shall remain
unchanged.
Pallavi 4/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
5 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
12. The above was followed by another office order dated 3 April 2018
which was issued pursuant to the meeting of the Respondents held on 11
July 2015 with regard to increase in the consolidated salary of the
temporary staff, which included the Petitioner.
13. The first Respondent issued another office order dated 29 May 2019
with regard to increase in the consolidated salary of the Petitioner,
reiterating that all other terms and conditions shall remain unchanged.
14. The Petitioner received an email communication from the Assistant
Registrar (Legal, RTI) with regard to reappointment of the Petitioner as
Executive Officer (Legal) in EO.2 for a period of one year with a working
day break in service. The duration of his renewed contractual appointment
period as indicated in the said email communication was from 15 April
2020 to 14 April 2021.
15. The first Respondent issued an office order dated 3 May 2021
approving the re-appointment of the Petitioner as Executive Officer (Legal)
to a Legal Unit for a period of 1 year, from 16 April 2021 to 15 April 2022.
This was followed by another office order dated 8 April 2022 re-appointing
the Petitioner for a temporary period of one year from 19 April 2022 to 18
April 2023.
16. The first Respondent issued an office order dated 6 February 2023
communicating enhancement of the Petitioner's consolidated salary for the
present tenure of appointment from 19 April 2022 to 18 April 2023. It was
Pallavi 5/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
6 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
specified that all other terms and conditions of assignment shall remain
unchanged. Similar orders were issued by the first Respondent to the
Petitioner on 19 April 2023 and 1 April 2024, respectively.
17. The first Respondent issued an office order dated 4 April 2025 to the
Petitioner with regard to his re-appointment as Executive Officer (Legal) to
the Legal Unit. This is for a period of 1 year from 24 April 2025 to 23 April
2026 indicating his consolidated salary for the said period.
18. The first Respondent issued an experience certificate to the Petitioner
tabulating his period of appointment governed by the Institute of
Technology Act, 1961, as Executive Officer (Legal), on contract basis from
11 April 2016 to 24 April 2025 i.e. for a period of 9+ years. Such certificate
was issued on the request of the Petitioner, made to the first Respondent.
19. The Petitioner addressed an email dated 9 March 2026 to the Section
Head and Administration of the first Respondent, inter alia, asking for
information/documentation regarding the post of Chief Legal Officer. In the
said email, the Petitioner addressed as officer of the Court under the
provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 expressing doubt regarding
appointment to the post, for the purposes of Criminal, Civil, CBI and High
Court proceedings, for which the documents would be required.
20. The first Respondent issued the Impugned Communication/Order
dated 13 March 2026 to the effect that the tenure of the Petitioner as
Executive Officer (Legal) for a period of 1 year w.e.f. 24 April 2025 would
Pallavi 6/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
7 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
expire on 23 April 2026. Accordingly, as per approval of the Competent
Authority the Petitioner was informed that there would be no further
extension to his appointment.
21. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the above has filed the present
Petition before this Court on 6 April 2026. According to the Petitioner, he
completes 10 years of service with the first Respondent on 11 April 2026.
Rival Contentions:-
Submissions of Petitioner:-
22. Mr. Naphade, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would
submit that the Petitioner was appointed to the post of Executive Officer
(Legal) pursuant to the Advertisement dated 8 July 2015 (Exh.- A to the
Petition). It is pursuant to such appointment as Executive Officer (Legal),
that the Petitioner worked for almost 10 years with the first Respondent.
23. The Petitioner's appointment was renewed from time to time. The
office order dated 4 April 2025 (Exh.-"O") would show that the last renewal
of the Petitioner's appointment was from 24 April 2025 to 23 April 2026. It
is after serving for almost 9 plus years that the Petitioner was served out
with the Impugned Communication/Order dated 13 March 2026 informing
him that his appointment is not renewed further.
24. According to Mr. Naphade, the impugned order is contrary to law as
it abruptly terminates the appointment of the Petitioner without assigning
any reasons in support thereof, in a manner which is arbitrary and
Pallavi 7/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
8 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
unreasonable. Mr. Naphade has placed due reliance on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Bhola Nath Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 1 followed
by Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2 to first contend that the
State and/or instrumentality of the State should act as a model employer
and not in an arbitrary and capricious manner as done in the present case.
25. He would submit that merely by using words like temporary,
contractual, ad hoc, the employer cannot deprive the individual of his
Constitutional right of employment which is otherwise lawful.
26. He would urge that the Petitioner was given continuous increments,
his work was rewarded on record, there were no complaints against the
Petitioner. He has a record of long standing, unblemished service with the
first Respondent.
27. Mr. Naphade would submit that after offering his services for almost
a decade, the manner in which his services are sought to be terminated by
the Respondents are completely contrary to the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Bhola Nath and Dharam Singh (supra) which warrants
interference by this Court.
28. According to Mr. Naphade, the first Respondent is duty bound to
sanction the post of Executive Officer (Legal) and regularize the Petitioner
against the said post. This is more particularly as during the entire tenure,
the Petitioner has performed the duties of Deputy Registrar (Legal) and
1 SLP (Civil) No.30762 of 2024 decided on 30 January 2026
2 Civil Appeal No.(S). 8558 of 2018
Pallavi 8/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
9 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
Assistant Registrar (Legal) which are permanent posts and therefore he is
entitled to be regularized on such posts.
29. Mr. Naphade has urged that the Respondents have acted contrary to
the principle of Legitimate Expectation. The Petitioner would legitimately
expect that after working for about a decade with the first Respondent he
would be regularized in the post of Executive Officer (Legal) or Deputy
Registrar (Legal). In this context he has relied on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Bhola Nath (supra) which according to the Petitioner has
not been followed by the Respondents.
30. Mr. Naphade would submit that by not recognizing the Petitioner's
continuous service for the purposes of regularization the Respondents have
acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner contrary to the
constitutional mandate under Article 14.
31. Mr. Naphade has urged that for all of the above reasons the Petition
deserves to be allowed and the Rule be made absolute.
Submissions of the Respondent:-
32. Mr. Naushad Engineer, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Respondents has submitted that admittedly and undisputedly, the Petitioner
does not belong to the category of workman or employee falling under
Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
33. He has urged that the post of Executive Officer (Legal) to which the
Petitioner was initially appointed, was a temporary post. Further, it is not a
Pallavi 9/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
10 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
sanctioned post at all. In view thereof, the decisions in Bhola Nath followed
by Dharam Singh (supra) relied upon by Mr. Naphade will in the very first
instance, not be applicable to the Petitioner.
34. He has then submitted that the prayer in the Petition clearly refers to
the relief sought by the Petitioner to be regularized on the post of Deputy
Registrar (Legal). He has tendered a document being in the nature of
tabular chart of administrative posts to demonstrate that the Petitioner does
not possess the necessary qualifications in terms of the marks and/or
otherwise to be promoted to such post of Deputy Registrar (Legal). Thus, on
this very ground, the Petitioner cannot seek regularization to the post of
Deputy Registrar (Legal) in as much as the Petitioner is not qualified and/or
does not possess the requisite qualifications required for the said post.
35. Mr. Engineer has invited the Court's attention to certain provisions
from the IIT Statutes which clearly distinguish between a regular
employment and a contractual employment. Statue No. 12 of the said
Statutes deal with regular employment whereas Statute No. 15 deals with
contractual employment under the Statutes.
36. In this context, Mr. Engineer would submit that this is clearly not a
regular employment and it is purely a contractual employment as would be
clearly revealed from his terms and conditions of appointment, for which he
would place reliance on the appointment letter which was tendered across
the bar.
Pallavi 10/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
11 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
37. Mr. Engineer, would then place reliance on the landmark judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs.
Umadevi & Ors.3, more particularly, on paragraphs 41, 42 and 43 and
paragraphs 51 to 53 of the said decision to distinguish between irregular
and illegal appointments. He would submit that the plea/prayer of the
Petitioner to be appointed to the post of Deputy Registrar (Legal) as prayed
for in the Petition would not merely be irregular but also illegal. This is in
as much as the Petitioner does not possess the requisite qualifications for
the said post. The requirements as they stand, without any relaxation, does
not render the Petitioner eligible to the said post of Deputy Registrar
(Legal). The Petitioner, is therefore seeking relaxation, as his prayers in the
Petition would clearly indicate. This would deprive the other deserving
candidates from the said post who otherwise possess such qualifications for
the said post of Deputy Registrar (Legal). He would submit that the decision
of the Supreme Court in Umadevi (Supra) would refer to such practice as
backdoor entry, which is condemned. He would also submit that in such
case/instances, even grant of interim relief cannot be considered as
observed by the Supreme Court, in Umadevi (supra). Mr. Engineer has also
relied on a subsequent Supreme Court decision in State of Karnataka and
Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors.4, which follows the ratio in the case of Umadevi
(supra) to emphasize the distinction between an irregular and illegal
3 (2006) 4 SCC 1
4 (2010) 9 SCC 247
Pallavi 11/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
12 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
appointment.
38. He would contend that the post of the Executive Officer (Legal) to
which the Petitioner was initially appointed was not a sanctioned post, is
temporary in nature and created only to meet administrative exigencies at
the relevant time. The Petitioner was always made aware of this, which is
evident from the timely renewals of his contractual employment which he
has been accepting from time to time. The Petitioner does not dispute that
the post of Executive Officer (Legal) is a temporary and/or not a sanctioned
post. Thus all these facts taken together does not make out a case of
regularization of the Petitioner either on the post of Executive Officer
(Legal) or the Assistant / Deputy Registrar (Legal).
39. For all the above reasons, Mr. Engineer would urge that the Petition is
devoid of merit and the same be dismissed.
Mr. Naphade's Submissions in Rejoinder:-
40. Mr. Naphade in response to the submissions made by Mr. Engineer
has controverted and disputed the stand taken by the Respondents. Mr.
Naphade has referred to the advertisement dated 8 October 2025 (Exhibit-R
to the Petition) to the post of Assistant Registrar (Legal). This is to submit
that the Petitioner is entitled to be regularized at least on such post, if not
to the post of Deputy Registrar (Legal) as prayed for in the Petition.
41. According to Mr. Naphade, the post of Assistant Registrar (Legal) is
lower than the post of Deputy Registrar (Legal). In fact, the salary that the
Pallavi 12/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
13 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
Petitioner is presently earning on the post of Executive Officer (Legal) is
much higher than that of the Deputy Registrar (Legal). This would be a
relevant factor in favour of the Petitioner to be regularized for the post of
Deputy Registrar (Legal). Merely because a separate prayer for
regularization to the post of Assistant Registrar (Legal) is not made in the
Petition, the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer on the ground of mere
technicalities.
42. Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for the Petitioner would urge that even
if the Petitioner does not comply with the age limit for such posts, this
cannot be taken as a ground to defeat the Petitioner's substantive right after
serving for almost a decade with the Respondents. The Respondents can
always relax such age limits and this has been done in appropriate cases,
this being one such case, according to Mr. Naphade.
Analysis:-
43. We have extensively heard the learned counsel for the parties and
with their assistance, we have perused the record.
44. At the very outset, the proceedings before us concern the
appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Executive Officer (Legal) with
the first Respondent. It is not in dispute that the said post is a temporary
post as clearly indicated in the advertisement issued by the first Respondent
dated 8 July 2015. So also, this is not a sanctioned post. Further, the
advertisement clearly clarifies that the appointment is contractual for a
Pallavi 13/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
14 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
period of three years. The Petitioner has accepted the said advertisement in
toto, which is also not in dispute.
45. It is true that the Petitioner was re-appointed to the said post from
time to time as indicated in the factual matrix above. However, every office
order issued to the Petitioner in this regard clearly specified that all the
other terms and conditions with regard to the Petitioner's appointment
would remain unchanged. It was therefore duly clarified that the nature of
the Petitioner's appointment was purely contractual for a temporary period
of one year, terminable by giving one month's notice from either side.
46. We have carefully perused the Impugned Communication/Order
dated 13 March 2026. It clearly refers to the office order of the first
Respondent dated 4 April 2025. The said office order had clearly specified
that the tenure of the Petitioner as Executive Officer (Legal) is for a period
of one year w.e.f. 24 April 2025 and would lapse on 23 April 2026. The
Petitioner was categorically informed that with the approval of the
competent authority, there would be no further extension to his
appointment/re-appointment. The Impugned Communication/Order is
confined to the fact that the Petitioner's term of appointment cannot be
further extended as it has come to an end by efflux of time. This, therefore,
is clearly not a case of terminating the services of the Petitioner by the
Respondents, whose contractual appointment period expired on 23 April
2026, as clearly indicated in the said office order dated 4 April 2025. It is
Pallavi 14/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
15 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
pertinent to note that the Petitioner has duly accepted the same, as well as
the terms of his appointment.
47. We have noted the submissions made by Mr. Engineer in regard to his
reliance on the Statutes of IIT Bombay viz. Statute No.11(C) - Classification
of Members of the Staff of the Institute, would include the post of the
Petitioner. Statute No.12 deals with Appointments to be normally filled by
advertisement. However, the Board of the first Respondent has the power to
decide on the recommendation of the director that a particular post be
filled by invitation or promotion from the members of the staff of the first
Respondent. Evidently, Statute No.13 provides for Terms and Conditions of
service of permanent employees. Whereas, Statute No.15 stipulates
appointment on contracts. A holistic reading of the said provisions would
indicate that the said Statutes clearly demarcate and distinguish between
permanent employees and those appointed on contracts including their
terms and conditions which are specified in the said Statute Nos.13 and 15,
respectively.
48. In our view, the Respondents have issued the Impugned
Communication/Order by duly considering and lending credence to the
said statutory provisions coupled with the terms of the advertisement dated
8 July 2015 and the appointment letter dated 8 February 2016, issued to
the Petitioner. This is coupled with the fact that the Petitioner's re-
appointment was clearly contractual, renewable from year to year, the last
Pallavi 15/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
16 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
of the renewal being until 24 April 2025, as clearly reflected in the
Impugned Communication/Order. We are not impressed with Mr. Naphade's
submission that merely because such contractual appointment of the
Petitioner was renewed from time to time along with increments, it would
create some vested right in favour of the Petitioner and/or a corresponding
obligation on the Respondents to regularize the same. Such submission in
our view, for the reasons further discussed below is not well founded, much
less convincing.
49. We have perused the tabular chart of administrative posts handed
over by the Mr. Engineer during the course of hearing. This provides for
entry level post of Deputy Registrar, the first advancement being that of
Joint Registrar and the second to that of Additional Registrar. The
qualifications and experience required for the post of Deputy Registrar
(Legal) would be Masters Degree in the relevant descipline with a minimum
of 55% of marks or equivalent grade point average with relevant experience
of 11 years, after the qualifying Degree, out of which five years shall be as
Assistant Registrar or in a post in Level 10 and above or equivalent. We
have also perused the job application form of the Petitioner also tendered
across the Bar by Mr. Engineer. The form along with the personal details
and Qualifications indicate that the Petitioner has a Masters Degree in Law
from Shivaji University, Kolhapur with a percentage of 50.5. The said
document is not controverted by the Petitioner. Therefore, clearly the
Pallavi 16/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
17 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
Petitioner does not possess the minimum prescribed qualifications
mandated for the next level posts as stipulated in the Qualifications and
Experience criteria, of the Respondents.
50. The Petitioner neither has the minimum prescribed qualifications for
the post of Deputy Registrar (Legal) nor has he worked as Assistant
Registrar (Legal) for a period of 5 years. In the absence of the Petitioner
satisfying such minimum qualifying criteria, it cannot be assumed that the
Petitioner has performed the duties of Deputy Registrar (Legal) and
Assistant Registrar (Legal) and the Petitioner cannot claim for
regularization to the same, merely because they are permanent posts. Even
if the Petitioner is earning salary which may be higher than that in the post
of Assistant Registrar (Legal) and/or Deputy Registrar (Legal) as stated by
him, that cannot be a determinative factor to regularize him in the said
post, in the absence of valid/prescribed qualifications, criteria (as noted
supra). Accepting such contention of the Petitioner would tantamount to
giving a back door entry in the employment of the first Respondent which is
not what the law would require. Moreover, the post of Executive Officer
(Legal) is not a sanctioned post as it was created only to meet the
administrative exigencies at the given time. It was always a temporary post
as clearly indicated in the advertisement dated 8 July 2015 and
appointment letter/terms of appointment, which the Petitioner duly
accepted.
Pallavi 17/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
18 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
51. We have noted the reliance placed by Mr. Naphade on the
advertisement for the post of Assistant Registrar (Legal) (Exhibit-R to the
Petition). He would submit that the Petitioner has fulfilled the criteria for
minimum qualification and experience under the said advertisement.
However, it is undisputed that the Petitioner has not even applied for such
post of Assistant Registrar (Legal), which requires 55% in Masters Degree in
Law (LL.M.) with an experience of 6 years as specified in the said
advertisement.
52. In the above context, Mr. Engineer would submit and rightly so that
in the event the Petitioner had applied, the same would have been
considered as per the terms and conditions for such post on its own merits
and in accordance with law as applicable. The Petitioner has not adopted
such course at all. This would be necessary for the Respondents to even
consider relaxation, if any in terms of age or otherwise qua the Petitioner.
Pertinently, there is no prayer/relief sought for in the Petition in this regard.
It is therefore not warranted for this Court, at this stage, to direct the
Respondents to consider the Petitioner's appointment to the post of
Assistant Registrar (Legal), in the given factual complexion. The Supreme
Court in Manohar Lal (Dead) By LRS Vs. Ugrasen (Dead) By LRS. And Ors 5
summarizing the legal position, has held that the Court cannot grant a relief
which has not been specifically prayed for by the parties.
5 (2010) 11 SCC 557
Pallavi 18/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
19 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
53. We have carefully gone through the prayers/reliefs sought for in the
Petition. In this regard, the Petitioner has specifically prayed for a direction
to the Respondents to regularize the service of the Petitioner in the post he
holds and or to that of Assistant and/or Deputy Registrar (Legal) and fix the
pay of the Petitioner along with arrears for the difference in amounts.
However, as noted above the Petitioner does not possess the minimum
qualifying criteria of 55% marks in the LL.M. examination as mandated by
the Respondents including relevant experience of 5 years as Assistant
Registrar (Legal) or (Level 10 post) to qualify for the post of Deputy
Registrar (Legal). For such reasons, we cannot accept Mr. Naphade's
contention that merely because the prayer clause does not specify
consideration of the Petitioner to the post of Assistant Registrar (Legal), the
Respondents ought not to consider him, in the given facts and
circumstances. So also, we cannot direct the Respondents to regularize the
services of the Petitioner in his present post of Executive Officer (Legal)
which is not even a sanctioned post. This being a contractual appointment
it came to an end at the expiry of the contract. As held by the Constitutional
Bench in Umadevi (supra) a temporary employee cannot claim to be made
permanent on expiry of his term of appointment. This is considering the
statutory framework under the IIT Statutes coupled with the terms and
conditions of the Petitioner's appointment/re-appointment (supra). Such
statutory/legal framework of the Respondents which is equally applicable to
Pallavi 19/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
20 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
the Petitioner, does not warrant and/or obligate the Respondents, to
regularize the appointment of the Petitioner as Executive Officer (Legal), in
the given factual matrix.
54. In the above backdrop, we now advert to the decision of the
Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Umadevi (Supra). This is
considered to be the locus classicus on the issue of regularization.
Considering the submission of Mr. Engineer in this regard, it would be
useful to extract certain paragraphs from the said decision, as under :-
"43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality
in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution
and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a
Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order
upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the
overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of
Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution.
Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public
employment, this Court while laying down the law, has
necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms
of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among
qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on
the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the
appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it
were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or
casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is
discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not
claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of
appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because
a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued
for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would
not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made
permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if
the original appointment was not made by following a due
process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is
not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the
instance of temporary employees whose period of
employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees
who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire
Pallavi 20/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
21 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions
for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance
unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in
terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an
employee had continued under cover of an order of Court,
which we have described as 'litigious employment' in the
earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any
right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In
fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in
issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the
employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be
possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that
ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an
interim direction to continue his employment would hold up
the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State
the burden of paying an employee who is really not
required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they
do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of
its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend
themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the
constitutional and statutory mandates.
52. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary
employees when they approach the court, is the issue of 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 arises
whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such
persons. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the
decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Rai
Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda
[(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144]. That case arose out of a refusal
to promote the writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a
college. This Court 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 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.
53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases
where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as
Pallavi 21/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
22 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
explained in S.V. Narayanappa, [(1967) 1 SCR 128] R.N.
Najundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409], and B.N. Nagarajan
[(1979) 4 SCC 507], and referred to in paragraph 15 above,
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 courts or of tribunals. The question of
regularization of the services of such employees may have to
be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled
by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light
of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the
State Governments and their instrumentalities should take
steps to regularize 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 courts or of tribunals and should further ensure
that regular recruitment 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 process must be set in motion within six
months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if
any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened
based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-
passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing
or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the
constitutional scheme."
55. The Supreme Court in the above decision has categorically
distinguished between irregular and illegal appointment of duly qualified
persons in duly sanctioned vacant post, which might have been made when
such employees have continued to work for ten years or more, but without
intervention of orders of Courts or Tribunals. It is in such context, the
Supreme Court observed that the State Government and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one - time measure,
the service of irregularly appointed person who have worked for ten years
or more in duly sanctioned posts. Evidently, in the present case, it is not
Pallavi 22/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
23 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
disputed that the post of Executive Officer (Legal) which the Petitioner has
been occupying is not a sanctioned post. Moreover, the claim of the
Petitioner for regularization to the post of Deputy Registrar (Legal) is not
merely irregular but also illegal as the Petitioner does not meet the requisite
qualification for the same as noted (Supra). In view thereof, the Petitioner
has not able to carve out a distinction from the Constitutional Bench
decision in Umadevi (Supra) which would apply with all force, even in the
given factual complexion.
56. Mr. Naphade has strenuously urged that the Impugned
Communication/Order was issued without prior intimation to the Petitioner
and contains no reasons in support thereof. However, a perusal of the same
would clearly indicate that the Petitioner was always aware of the nature of
his appointment/re-appointment, renewable from year to year. It was only
due to efflux of time i.e. on 23 April 2026 that the tenure as Executive
Officer (Legal) was to expire, as is set out in the Impugned
Communication/Order.
57. Pertinent it is to note that the Constitutional Bench decision in
Umadevi (supra) has clearly considered this aspect/issue. The Supreme
Court therein has held that the High Court may not be justified in issuing
interim directions if the employee approaching the Court is not found
entitled to such relief. This is in as much as an interim direction to continue
his employment would hold up regular procedure for selection or impose
Pallavi 23/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
24 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
on the State the burden of paying an employee who may not be really
required. Juxtaposing these observations to the given facts, it is evident that
the Petitioner's claim/relief for regularization to the post of Deputy
Registrar (Legal) would not merely be irregular but also illegal as the
Petitioner does not meet the qualifying criteria for the said post, as noted
(supra). Moreover, the post which the Petitioner has been currently
deployed is not a sanctioned post. A temporary employee cannot claim to
be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment, as also held
in Umadevi (Supra). For such reasons, we see no deficiency, irregularity,
much less illegality in the Impugned Communication/Order passed by the
First Respondent.
58. We are not in agreement with Mr. Naphade's submission that merely
because the Petitioner occupies the post of Executive Officer (Legal) which
is not a sanctioned post, nothing prevents the authorities from creating the
same in the given case. Such contention is misconstrued, much less
untenable in the given factual scenario, and would depart from what the
law mandates in such situations.
59. Let us now examine the decision in State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs.
M.L. Kesari And another (Supra) relied on by Mr. Engineer. We find that,
the Supreme Court in paragraph 7 of the said decision has reiterated the
exceptions to the general principles carved out against regularization in the
judgment of Umadevi (Supra). Accordingly, where the employee has
Pallavi 24/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
25 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
worked for ten years or more in a duly sanctioned post or where the person
appointed/regularized does not possess the prescribed minimum
qualification, such appointments would be considered as illegal. It is only
when the person employed possess a prescribed qualification and working
against sanctioned post, has been selected without undergoing the process
of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be
irregular. In the given facts, as the claim of regularization by the Petitioner
to the post of Deputy Registrar (Legal) not merely being irregular but
illegal, for want of requisite qualifications, in light of which, the judgment
of the Supreme Court in M.L. Kesari (Supra) would squarely apply to the
given facts.
60. Mr. Naphade has placed due emphasis on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Bhola Nath (Supra). We have noted the submission of Mr.
Nahpade in this regard that the State and/or the instrumentality of the
State is to act as a model employer and the dispute ought not to be reduced
to one of acceptance of contractual terms, divorced from its larger
constitutional context. He has also emphasized on the observations in the
said judgment to the effect that the Courts are empowered to invalidate
unconscionable element of a contract, where the parties lack the ability to
exercise any real or meaningful choice in negotiating its terms. Mr. Naphade
has also relied on the said judgment to buttress the aspect of legitimate
expectation which in the present case as he would submit, does exist in
Pallavi 25/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
26 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
favour of the Petitioner.
61. At the first blush, the submissions of Mr. Naphade in the above
context does appear attractive. However, on deeper scrutiny and careful
reading of the judgment, such interpretation of Mr. Naphade is not tenable.
The present is a case where the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of
Executive Officer (Legal) was at all times purely contractual, renewable on
a yearly basis, by the employer/first Respondent. The Supreme Court in the
said decision of Bhola Nath (Supra) has referred to the Constitution Bench
decision in Umadevi (Supra), where the Supreme Court clarified the legal
position in regard to the doctrine of legitimate expectation qua contractual,
temporary or casual employees. The Supreme Court clarified that it cannot
be that the State has held out any promise while engaging persons either to
continue them where they are, or to make them permanent. The State
cannot constitutionally make such promise. In the given case, the legitimacy
of expectation is neither rooted in the Recruitment Rules nor under the IIT
Bombay Statutes which, therefore, will have no application in the given
factual scenario.
62. In any event, in the case of Bhola Nath (supra) the Supreme Court in
its conclusion emphasized on sanctioned vacant posts for continuation of
the Appellants therein. It is in this context, that the nomenclature in regard
to part-time, contractual or temporary employment is to be construed and
not dehors the same. In view thereof, Mr. Naphade's submissions in this
Pallavi 26/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
27 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
context are not supported by the observations and decisions in the case of
Bhola Nath (supra) read with Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors.6 which apart
from being delivered in a set of completely different facts and
circumstances, do not make any departure from the law settled in the case
of Umadevi (Supra). Moreover, we find merit in the submissions of Mr.
Engineer in this regard that the Appellants before the Supreme Court in
Bhola Nath (supra) were employees governed by Article 309 of the
Constitution of India.
63. It cannot be disputed that an instrumentality of a State also ought to
act as a model employer. However, in the given facts and from the record, it
appears that the contractual employment of the Petitioner with the
Respondents for a fixed period of one year subject to renewal from time to
time was fully known to the Petitioner who accepted such terms, ultimately
culminating in the non-renewal of his reappointment as Executive Officer
(Legal). Therefore, such decision of the Respondents who has acted within
the four corners of law cannot be faulted, inter alia, on the ground of
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as urged by the
Petitioner. The same is neither infringed nor violated qua the Petitioner in
the given factual matrix, in any manner whatsoever.
64. The decision of the Supreme Court relied on by Mr. Naphade in
Dharam Singh and Ors. (supra) is also clearly distinguishable. The Supreme
6 (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826
Pallavi 27/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
28 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
Court in that case was dealing with class 3 and class 4 employees employed
on daily wage basis with the State of UP. It is in such fact situation that the
Supreme Court observed that temporary employees particularly in
Government Institutions often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. This
practice is manifest in ways like arbitrary termination; lack of career
progression; using outsourcing as a shield; denial of basic rights and
benefits. That was a situation where ad-hocism was examined in the
context of similarly placed workers who were treated differently. Such
situation is clearly absent in the given factual complexion and therefore
reliance on the said decision by Mr. Naphade, would not take the case of
the Petitioner any further.
65. It is apposite at this juncture to refer to another three Judge Bench
decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Anita
And Anr.7. The Supreme Court in paragraph 15 therein observed that the
appointments of employees made initially for 11 months, but were renewed
twice. After serving maximum contractual period, such services came to an
end and the Government initiated a fresh selection process. After having
accepted the contractual appointment, the Respondents are estopped from
challenging the terms of their appointment. They are not precluded from
applying for the said post afresh subject to the satisfaction of other
eligibility criteria. In the present case also, the Petitioner after having
7. (2016) 8 SCC 293
Pallavi 28/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
29 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
exhausted his contractual period as Executive Officer (Legal) could have
easily applied to the post of Assistant Registrar (Legal) which as noted
above, would then warrant consideration, in terms of such appointment.
However, the Petitioner chose to seek regularization to the post of Deputy
Registrar (Legal) from his current post which is not even a sanctioned post.
Moreover, he does not fulfill the qualifying criteria for the said post of
Deputy Registrar (Legal). The law clearly does not mandate such backdoor
entry.
66. We have duly noted the submission of Mr. Engineer that the
Petitioner has applied to the post of Chief Legal Advisor (on contract basis)
where he has been selected vide advertisement no. 01/2025 dated 30 April
2025 issued by Maharashtra Transco, a Government undertaking. The
necessary communication in this regard has been tendered across the bar.
The Petitioner has clearly explored other alternative sources/job prospects
and does not depend only on the first Respondent for his
employment/livelihood. Such fact is not disclosed in the petition. We are
not impressed, much less convinced with the explanation/justification of
Mr. Naphade pursuant to such development which is factually not
controverted or disputed. It thus cannot be ruled out that the Petitioner is
taking his chance by way of the present petition.
67. Before concluding, we may observe that clear lines are drawn post
the Constitutional Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Umadevi
Pallavi 29/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:04 :::
30 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
(Supra). The distinction between irregular and illegal appointment has
been followed in the subsequent decision by the Supreme Court in M. L.
Kesari and Others (Supra). Deviating from such well settled legal position
that too in the given case where the contractual appointment has come to
end by efflux of time, pursuant to which the Petitioner has applied for
regularization/permanency, would, in our view would unsettle the settled
law. We cannot countenance such an approach. We respectfully agree with
the settled legal position that fairness in engagement and transparency in
administration are not matters of grace but are obligations under Articles
14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, in regard to which, there is no
contravention in the given factual complexion. This is a case where the
Petitioner seeking justice by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the
writ court has not been able to demonstrate that granting relief as prayed
for would do justice and/or that justice lies on his side8.
68. In light of the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to entertain
the petition, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
i) The Petition is dismissed. The Rule is discharged.
ii) No order as to cost.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
8 The State of Bombay vs. Morarji Cooverji [1958 SCC OnLine Bom 188]
Pallavi 30/31
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:05 :::
31 J-WP-5148-2026- IIT.doc
69. After pronouncement of the judgment, Mr. Naphade, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has made a request that the Petitioner may be permitted to continue his stay in the official residence / accommodation for a further period until 8 June 2026. He would submit that the Petitioner is already eligible to occupy the said official residence until 22 May 2026. In view thereof, he would request for a 15 days extension until 8 June 2026. The learned counsel for the Respondents would submit that he has no instructions at this stage. However, the Court may pass appropriate orders.
70. Having considered this request, we deem it appropriate to grant such extension to the Petitioner making it very clear that this should only be until 8 June 2026, subject to an appropriate Undertaking be furnished/filed by the Petitioner, to this Court by the end of today.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.] Pallavi 31/31 ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 11:38:05 :::