Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010014532024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/454/2024 DHRUBAJYOTI CHAKRABORTY S/O SRI NARAYAN CHAKRABORTY, R/O NEAR LANE NO. 7L, SHIVALIK PARK, MEHERPUR, SILCHAR-788015, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, SILCHAR AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, CACHAR, PIN CODE-788010, ASSAM 2:THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SILCHAR CACHAR PIN CODE-788010 ASSAM 3:DEAN (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SILCHAR CACHAR PIN CODE-788010 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY, MR. A GOYAL,MR. DIVYANSH RATHI,MR. D. BORAH,MR. M SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S P CHOUDHURY (SC, NIT SILCHAR), BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN Page No.# 2/10 JUDGMENT Date : 15-05-2026 Heard Mr. S. Saxena, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Goyel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Chodhury, learned Standing Counsel for the National Institute of Technology, Silchar, i.e. the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. [2] By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for regularizing his services as a junior Engineer in the National Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to in short, N.I.T.), Silchar from his initial date of appointment i.e. 14.10.2009 [3] The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as junior Engineer on contractual basis in the N.I.T., Silchar for a period of 6 (six) months on the recommendation of the Selection Committee meeting held on 12.10.2009. It was further stipulated in the said order that the petitioner would be paid consolidated emoluments on contractual basis. In pursuant to the said appointment order an agreement was entered into between the Institute and the petitioner. The petitioner has since been working in the said capacity as a Junior Engineer in the said institute. [4] Thereafter by order dated 23.04.2010, the contractual appointment of the petitioner was extended by a period of 6 (six) months with effect from 17.04.2010 in the Estate Section of the N.I.T. Thereafter, again the services of the petitioner were extended by another period of 6 (six) months with effect from 18.10.2010 (Annexure-C). It is to be stated herein that immediately on the expiry of 6 (six) months period from the earlier extension order, the petitioner was again appointed for another period of 6 (six) months on contractual basis. Then again by an order dated 20.04.2011, the services of the petitioner was Page No.# 3/10 again extended for another period of 6 (six) months with effect from 19.04.2011 and it is seen in all the orders that the gap between the 2 extension orders was 3 days with regard to the first one and 1 day with regard to the other two. [5] Thereafter, vide order dated 25.10.2011, pursuant to the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Junior Engineer and again the said appointment was made for a period of 6 (six) months on contractual basis. Thereafter, his services were again extended by 11 months with effect from 26.04.2012. This appointment is made again on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Subsequently, on 14.02.2013, the petitioner along with other similarly situated contractual employees were released from services with effect from 28.02.2013. However, again the petitioner alongwith others were selected as trainee with effect from 11.03.2013 vide order dated 05.03.2013. Then, by order dated 27.08.2013, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) again on contractual basis on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and on consolidated emoluments. Thereafter, there was again extension of his services time and again. [6] Thereafter, again on 02.07.2014, the services of the petitioner as Assistant Engineer was again reengaged with effect from 02.07.2024 to 31.12.2014. The services of the petitioner were extended after that on a number of times. Thereafter, on 01.07.2015, the petitioner was appointed as Engineer in the Estate Section on consolidated remuneration and it was stated in the said appointment order that his continuation would be subjected to the satisfactory performance. Thereafter, extension was again granted. However, it is seen that the petitioner was considered as an outsourced staff and necessary intimation that the petitioner was re-designated from junior Engineer to Page No.# 4/10 Assistant Engineer was intimated to the M/s. Panaroma International by the Registrar of the N.I.T., Silchar. The petitioner as an outsourced employee was again made to work in N.I.T., Silchar. [7] It is also noticed that in between the salary has also been enhanced in respect of the petitioner and other similarly situated employees. Thereafter, on various dates, the contractual services of the petitioner was extended. It is as such seen that the petitioner was continuing as Junior Engineer in the Estate Department of the N.I.T. and that for the short period of the time he was stated to be outsourced employee but he was engaged in the N.I.T. While he was continuing as a Junior Engineer, an advertisement was issued on 07.07.2023 for the post of Junior Engineer alongwith other posts. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner as internal worker, applied for the said post but he was unsuccessful. [8] The petitioner made representation before the authority concerned stating inter alia that he appeared as an internal candidate and he further stated that it is very difficult to compete with the fresh applicants and the chances of qualifying for getting the Government job would be impossible and this representation was made before the declaration of result and even before the test conducted. It is stated by the petitioner that he has made representation prior to that i.e. in the year, 2019 and 2020. The petitioner had again made representation and he has stated that none of the representations were paid heed by the authority concerned. It is also to be noted that the petitioner also submitted the works he had done during his engagement as Junior Engineer as well as Assistant Engineer and Engineer in the N.I.T. and it shows that the petitioner had worked in his best capacity. The petitioner has worked from the year 2009 to 2026 in a contractual basis and as such he was constrained to file Page No.# 5/10 the instant application seeking for regularization of his services. [9] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner was utilized by the N.I.T. since 2009 and the petitioner was paid only the consolidated amount and that he worked with the legitimate expectation that one day his services would be regularized. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a number of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which are mentioned as follows: (1) Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826. (2) Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327. (3) Baleshwar Dass and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (1980) 4 SCC 226. (4) State of Uttaranchal and anther Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 683. (5) G.C. Gupta and others Vs. N.K. Pandey and others, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 316. (6) Deen Bandhu Garg and others Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and others, in W.P.(C) 11693/2019. (7) Volanath Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 129. (8) Namita Khare and another Vs. University of Delhi and others, reported in 2025 SCC Online Del 4898. [10] Against a pointed query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted the annual reports of the N.I.T. for various years and in the years 2009 to 2010, it is seen that sanctioned strength of posts of Junior Engineer in the NIT were two, one was held by a regular appointee and one was vacant. Similarly, other years also he placed two posts were sanctioned post and one was held by a regular employee and one was lying vacant. It is as such seen when the petitioner was appointed one sanctioned post was already vacant in the N.I.T. The learned counsel submits that the Page No.# 6/10 petitioner could have been inducted in the said post by going through a proper selection process but he was appointed on contractual basis and was extended years after years. [11] On the other hand, Mr. S. P. Choudhury, leaned counsel for all the respondents i.e. N.I.T. submits that admittedly the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and his services was extended from year to year and that the petitioner knows his service condition that he was appointed in contractual basis and not on regular basis. The petitioner neither can claim any legitimate expectation nor he has submitted any representation for regularizing his services in the required point of time. He submits that the petitioner only after appearing in the examination in the selection process initiated by the advertisement in the year 2023 and not before that, had submitted his representation. [12] The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the vacancies had to be filled up by regular recruitment such an advertisement by following the due procedure as laid down in the recruitment rules which were not gone into while appointing the petitioner and as such the petitioner cannot claim a right to be regularized. More so, there was break in the services during the extension given to the petitioner. He further submits that although the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and was made to work in the N.I.T. at different period of time, but later on he was an outsourced employee and as such it could not be said that the petitioner has worked continuously in the N.I.T. since the date of his initial appointment as a contractual worker. He relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, by which it is said that a contractual employee continuing for a long time cannot claim for Page No.# 7/10 regularization of his service, more so, when the initial appointment was not made by following the due procedure of law. He also relied upon the case of Amal Kanta Das Vs. The State of Assam, represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department and others, reported in 2026 Supreme (Gau) 522. [13] It is noticed that the vacancy of Junior Engineer was there in the year, 2009 and sanctioned posts of Junior Engineer were two and one was filled up by a regular employee and one was vacant, but the petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis. However, the said appointment was not illegal and it was stated in the appointment order that a Selection Committee recommended his appointment in its meeting held on a particular date. It is noticed that while giving extension of service to the petitioner, the recommendation of the Selection Committee was in place on a number of times in a number of occasions, if not all. It is also noticed that that the petitioner was inducted in a higher post of Assistant Engineer and Engineer again on contractual basis but the same had the recommendation of the Selection Committee. It is also noticed that that before the petitioner was appointed as contractual employee; an advertisement was issued for appointment of Junior Engineer who is required to have certain qualification. As such it is seen that the appointment of the petitioner in all 3 posts of Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Engineer were neither illegal nor irregular in a strict sense of the term. The difference is made and annunciated in the judgment of Umadevi (Supra). [14] By the documents it is also noticed that that the petitioner had worked sincerely and to the satisfaction of the N.I.T., which is evident from the various extension orders given to him. As such, it cannot be stated that the petitioner had simply worked on his own volition without being required to man Page No.# 8/10 the various posts held by him in the N. I.T. It is not a res-integra that the State as a modal employer is expected to act with high probity, fairness and candour and it bears a special responsibility to treat its employees in a manner that preserve their dignity. The State cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or to take advantage of their vulnerability or helplessness and unequal bargaining. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Uniion of India, reported in 2024 Online SC 3826 wherein it was held as follows: “26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) 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. 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 regularization 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 Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall Page No.# 9/10 betterment of labour practices in the country.” [15] It is clear from the above, when the State or when the Institute utilizes the services of the employee for a long period, since their services are required as the same could be discerned from various extension orders, they cannot turn around later and say that they cannot regularize the services and would permit them to work in the said capacity for the rest of the tenure. It is seen in the instant case that though there were two sanctioned posts of Junior Engineer in the N.I.T. and one post was vacant all throughout, there was no impediment on the part of the respondents to conduct a selection process and appoint a Junior Engineer to the said vacant post. However, the same was not done and the respondents without mentioning that the petitioner was appointed to a sanctioned post, have stated in a very vague manner that the petitioner is appointed as Junior Engineer on contractual basis and it was extended from time to time. A sanctioned post being available in the N.I.T., this case cannot be distinguished from other cases that the petitioner could not have been appointed to the vacant sanctioned post and he cannot be regularized in his services. 16] In view of the above discussion and findings, this petition is allowed. [17] It is also not lost sight of the fact that by virtue of the advertisement in the year of 2023, the sanctioned post of Junior Engineer in the N.I.T. were 6 (six) in numbers. It is also seen that the petitioner before the examination held and in pursuant to the said advertisement has submitted representation before the authority expressing his and other similarly situated employees’ inability to compete with the fresh candidates. However, he and others appeared and was unsuccessful in the said examination and as such he could not be appointed to the said 6 (six) sanctioned posts in the N.I.T. Page No.# 10/10 However, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the N.I.T. submits that the N.I.T. would not discontinue with the services of the petitioner, which makes it clear that the N.I.T. would retain the services of the petitioner and having expressed the said view, it is as such directed that the petitioner should be inducted in the services of the N.I.T. by creating a supernumerary post and his services should be regularized forthwith with all financial benefits. [18] The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant