Kum esh Kum ar and ot hers v. H.N.B. Garhwal Universit y, Cent ral Universit y, Srinagar and ot hers

Dr. Kart ikey Hari Gupt a, Mr. Rafat Munir Ali and Ms. I r um Zeba, learned counsel. Mr. Vinod Naut iyal, Mr . M.C. Pant , Mr . Ashut osh Post i, Mr. Sandeep Kot hari, Mr. C.K. Sharm a, Ms. Neelam Godiyal, Mr. Shivanand Bhat t , Mr . G.D. Joshi, Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel for privat e respondent s. Ms. Anj ali Bhargawa, learned counsel for UGC. JUD GM EN T : ( p e r M r . G. N a r e n d a r , C.J.) Heard learned counsel for t he appellant- Universit y and learned counsel for t he respondent s.

2. The appellant- Universit y is before t his Court being aggrieved by t he order passed by t he learned Single Judge, whereby t he learned Single Judge has been pleased t o allow t he writ pet it ions praying regularizat ion of t heir em ploym ent in Hem wat i Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal Universit y ( Cent ral) , Srinagar Garhwal ( hereinaft er referred t o as t he ‘Universit y’) by following t he order dat ed

20.03.2018 passed by t he Coordinat e Bench in WPSS No. 425 of 2014 ‘Kum esh Kum ar and ot hers vs. H.N.B. Garhwal Universit y, Cent ral Universit y, Srinagar and ot hers’. The 4 learned Single Judge has been pleased t o hold in Paragraph- 5 as under: - t he counsel “ 5. Lear ned respondent ( s) / t he Univer sit y would adm it s t hat t he sim ilar cont roversy had alr eady been decided by t his Court in WPSS No.425 of 2014, Kum esh Kum ar and ot her s Vs. H.N. B. Garhwal Univer sit y, Cent ral Univer sit y, Srinagar and ot hers; and in WPSS No.44 of 2024, Ram kishan Pandey and ot hers vs. Hem wat i Nandan Bahuguna Cent ral Universit y and anot her. He would subm it t hat t he cases of t he pet it ioner s shall be considered for regularizat ion on t he r espect ive post s, which ar e st ill vacant .”

3. On t he previous dat e, we had called t he counsel for t he appellant- Universit y t o place m at erial, which form ed t he basis for t he concession by t he learned counsel.

4. Today, t he learned counsel t he appellant- em ployer has placed before t he Court t he Minut es of m eet ings of t he Com m it t ee const it ut ed by t he Universit y for regularizat ion daily- wage earners int o regular appoint m ent s. The Minut es of t he Meet ing dat ed 24.04.2025 t he list , annexed t o t he Minut es of t he Meet ing cont aining t he nam es of 148 persons and t he vacancies in Group- C, et c. are placed before t he Court .

5. I t is t he case of t he appellant t hat t he order of t he learned Single Judge was forwarded t o t he Minist ry as t he Universit y is under t he cont rol of t he Union Governm ent being t he Cent ral Universit y, and t he Minist ry has t aken 5 offense t o t he concession m ade before t his Court and has quest ioned t he rat ionale.

6. We have perused t he Minut es and we find t hat t here is absolut ely no discussion of t he individual cases, m uch less even bare m erit s of each case.

7. The right t o regularizat ion ( which undisput edly is a back- door ent ry) is not a vest ed right . Apparent ly, court s have been liberal in direct ing regularisat ion based on fact s, part iculars and m erit s of each claim .

8. I n t he inst ant case, t here is no discussion about t he m erit s or t he de- m erit s of t he claim s of each of t he pet it ioners. The concession by t he Com m it t ee, in our considered opinion, does not reflect applicat ion of m ind, nor is t here any foundat ional fact s, which would ot herwise enable any prudent individual t o concur wit h t he recom m endat ions. Apparent ly, t he counsel represent ing t he appellant , in t he light of t he report of t he Com m it t ee, has been large heart ed enough t o convey t he decision of his client t o t his Hon’ble Court and, on t he basis of which, t he order of t he learned Single Judge cam e t o be passed.

9. There can be no disput e, nor can we vent ure t o find any error in t he order, but we are const rained t o int erfere on t he short ground t hat an om nibus order, in 6 respect of and in t he nam e of regularizat ion would not st and t he t est of law. I t is indisput able and it is t rit e law t hat t he claim of regularizat ion is dependent on t he m erit of t he claim , like eligibilit y of t he candidat e appoint ed t o a post , whet her t he appoint m ent was against a vacant post , and if not , whet her t he appoint m ent is against a non- sanct ioned post , but t he nat ure of work has becom e an int egral part of t he adm inist rat ive / m anagem ent process et c., and so on.

10. I n t hat view, we have suggest ed t o t he part ies as t o whet her t he exercise can be re- done in t he light of t he above discussions, t o which learned counsels on bot h sides have readily consent ed. The consent of t he learned counsels is placed on record.

11. The inst ant Special Appeals are disposed of by m odifying t he order of t he learned Single Judge. The pet it ioners / t he privat e respondent s shall subm it individual represent at ions det ailing t herein: - ( 1) t heir dat e of birt h; ( 2) t heir qualificat ions; ( 3) t he dat e of t heir ent ering int o service; ( 4) t he post held by t hem ; 7 ( a) whet her t he post is a sanct ioned post , ( b) whet her t he appoint m ent is against a vacant post . That apart , in respect of appoint m ent against non sanct ioned post , t he appellant- em ployer shall apply it s m ind and conclude as t o whet her t he post held by t he individual is or has becom e an int egral part of t he adm inist rat ive / m anagem ent process. I n t he event , t he post s, or t he dut ies and responsibilit ies at t ached t o t he post s, are ad hoc in nat ure and not perm anent in nat ure, t he appellant- em ployer shall conclude as t o whet her t he pet it ioner / em ployee has worked for a sufficient ly long period of t im e. I f t hat be so, t he appellant- em ployer consider creat ing supernum erary post s t ill such of t hose pet it ioners / em ployees dem it office. The appellant- em ployer shall look int o t he law laid down by t he Hon’ble Apex Court in D h a r a m Si n g h a n d o t h e r s v s. St a t e o f U.P. a n d a n o t h e r report ed in 2 0 2 5 SCC On Li n e SC 1 7 3 5 while carrying out t he above exercise.

12. I t is m ade clear t hat if any of t he sim ilarly sit uat ed persons have been regularized, t he regularizat ion shall be re- visit ed t he above t erm s, and t he seniority shall be 8 assigned aft er t he com plet ion of t he present exercise.

13. We deem it necessary t o order so as it would ot herwise lead t o m ult iple rounds of lit igat ions again wit h regard t o seniorit y, qualifying service, prom ot ions et c.

14. The above exercise shall be com plet ed wit hin a period of six m ont hs t he dat e of t he pet it ioners subm it t ing t heir individual represent at ions.

15. Pending applicat ion, if any, also st ands disposed of accordingly.

16. The original record be ret urned t o t he counsel represent ing t he appellant- Universit y. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ G. N A REN DA R, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SUBH A SH UPA D H YA Y, J. Dt : 13 t h Oct ober, 2025 Rat hour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb109 7d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179B8 E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR 9