Dr. Prabhjot Kaur Walia And Others vs Panjab University And Another

Jagmohan Bansal, J

The members of Bar are abstaining from work.

On 01.12.2025, this Court passed the following order: -

“The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondents to regularize their services in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shah Samir Bharatbhai and Ors. vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors. (2025 INSC 1026), Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, (2025 (4) SLR 467), Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of UP & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018), Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors, (2018) 8 SCC 238, Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2024) 1 SCR 1230].

The petitioners are working with respondents since 2006-07. They were appointed against advertisement issued by respondent. They were appointed on contract/temporary basis. They are working since 2006. The respondent extended their tenure from time to time. They are working since 2006 without Court intervention as well as break. They from time to time submitted representations to authorities to regularize them. Principal-cum-Professor vide letter dated 04.12.2015 recommended their case. They are discharging academic and clinical duties at par with regular teachers.

Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate seeks time to get instructions.

Adjourned to 16.12.2025.”

This Court vide judgment dated 06.11.2025 passed in CWP No.26899 of 2025, Nishi and another v. Panjab University and others, has directed Panjab University to regularize the petitioners therein. It has further been observed that case of similarly situated employees, who had already completed 10 years service, may be considered. The operative portion of aforesaid judgment reads as: -

“19. As per judgment of this Court as well as Supreme Court, adhoc, temporary, part time, daily wage or contractual workers cannot be regularized if their appointment was not made as per procedure prescribed for regular appointments. The petitioners were appointed after following due procedure. They are fully qualified. They are working with the University since 2012 and that too without any protection of this Court or any other Court. They were selected against sanctioned posts. Few sanctioned posts may be filled up through impugned advertisement even if petitioners are regularized.

In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

The respondents are hereby directed to regularize the petitioners within six weeks from today. If no order of regularization is passed within 6 weeks from today, they shall be deemed to regularized. They would be entitled to seniority and regular pay from the expiry of aforesaid period.

The respondent would be free to fill other posts against impugned advertisement. During the course of hearing, it was revealed that there are other teachers who are working for more than 10 years as contractual. The respondent, to avoid litigation, may consider claim of other teachers in the light of instant judgment.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

Case of the petitioners prima facie seems to be covered by aforesaid judgment. The respondent ought to consider case of the petitioners in the light of aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent-Panjab University to consider case of the petitioners in the light of aforesaid judgment. Let the needful be done within 3 months from today.