JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs: - “(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as lecturer (now re-designated as Assistant Professor) forthwith by further directing the respondents to pay regular scale to the petitioner for which a Lecturer/Assistant Professor is entitled to as per the UGC norms. (ii) That further an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and Annexure P-16, or any other similar Ad. Particularly qua subject of the petitioner and for the campus where the petitioner is working, may be quashed and set-aside by further directing the respondents not to hold interviews for the post of History at Ved Vyas Campus, Garli Balahar, Kangra, H.P.” 2. The petitioner is teaching subject of History in respondent No.3 Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (for short, “The Sansthan”) continuously since 2001. The instant petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2014 on the premise that despite the petitioner having rendered more than 13 years of continuous service, was being called upon to participate in a fresh selection process. Claiming a right to be regularized on the strength of long service rendered by the petitioner, the instant petition was filed for the reliefs as noticed above. 3. Indisputably, the petitioner is still serving respondent No.3 and, in this manner, the duration of service of petitioner has been more than 24 years. 4. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that though he has continuously been serving the Sansthan as a teacher in the subject of History, the nomenclature used for his post has been differently applied as part time teacher, period based teacher and contract employee from time to time. As per the petitioner, in the year 2002, the petitioner was being employed on one-year contract and thereafter his services were regularly extended from time to time. He was being paid Rs.5000/- per month as remuneration, which was revised to Rs.8000/- per month w.e.f. 13.08.2005. 5. It is also the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 14.07.2006 his tenure was extended till further orders or new appointment was made. 6. The petitioner has further alleged that in between 2001 to 2006, the petitioner was made to face three walk- in-interviews. 5. It is also the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 14.07.2006 his tenure was extended till further orders or new appointment was made. 6. The petitioner has further alleged that in between 2001 to 2006, the petitioner was made to face three walk- in-interviews. In 2007, an advertisement was issued in National Newspaper, in pursuance to which the petitioner faced another interview at Delhi for the same post. Thereafter, the respondents started giving contractual appointment to the petitioner on year-to-year basis. 7. The salary of the petitioner, as alleged in the petition, was revised to Rs.12,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.07.2009 and Rs.20,000/- per month w.e.f. 17.06.2011. Lastly, the petitioner was drawing revised salary of Rs.39,000/- per month at the time of filing of the petition. 8. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed their reply. It is stated that respondent No.2 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and was funded by grant-in-aid received from the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India. It was made deemed University in May, 2002. 9. It was admitted that the initial engagement of petitioner was w.e.f. 24.08.2001. The specific stand of the respondents is that the engagement of the petitioner was need based and was not against any vacant sanctioned post. As per respondents, the petitioner was being given break during summer vacations and as such, his services were discontinued every year. The facts with respect to petitioner having faced interviews and his salary being revised from time to time, have not been denied. 10. No separate reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1, rather, said respondent has adopted the same reply as filed by respondents No. 2 and 3. 11. In rejoinder filed by the petitioner, the quantum of work being performed by the petitioner has been highlighted. It is mentioned that the petitioner was the only teacher teaching the subject of History in the entire institution. In 2013-2014 academic session, there were 218 students, who had opted for subject of History. In 2014- 2015 the strength of students in the subject of History arose to 298 and further to 308 during the academic session 2015-2016. The petitioner also brought on record the fact that he was fully qualified for the post of Lecturer (re-designated as Assistant Professor) even as per the UGC norms as he was holder of Ph.D degree since 1991. The petitioner also brought on record the fact that he was fully qualified for the post of Lecturer (re-designated as Assistant Professor) even as per the UGC norms as he was holder of Ph.D degree since 1991. 12. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner filed application being CMP No.3227 of 2019 with a prayer to place on record additional documents. The emphasis of the petitioner was to establish the fact that he had been working in the Sansthan against a vacant sanctioned post. The respondents did not choose to controvert the averments made in the application. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 14. At the outset, Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India made a feeble attempt to challenge the maintainability of the petition. He would contend that respondent No.3 was a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and could not be termed as State or any other authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 15. The arguments so raised will not hold good in light of the specific admission found in the reply of the respondents to the effect that respondents No.2 and 3 were funded by the grant-in-aid received from the department of Human Resources Development, Government of India. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2 was conferred the status of deemed university in the year 2002 and later it has become the University under a statute. Even otherwise, there was no objection to the maintainability of the petition taken by the respondents at any stage of the proceedings. 16. The respondents have not been able to controvert the fact that the petitioner has been continuously working in the “Sansthan” since 2001. The petitioner had rendered about 14 years of service in the “Sansthan” till the date of filing of the petition and now the total service of petitioner in the “Sansthan” is more than about 24 years. 17. The defence as raised by the respondents that the engagement of petitioner was need basis cannot be countenanced. The petitioner by way of rejoinder has placed on record the strength of the students during the academic sessions 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. On an average 280 students in the subject of History were available in each academic session in the “Sansthan”. The defence as raised by the respondents that the engagement of petitioner was need basis cannot be countenanced. The petitioner by way of rejoinder has placed on record the strength of the students during the academic sessions 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. On an average 280 students in the subject of History were available in each academic session in the “Sansthan”. No counter has been filed by the respondents to controvert the aforesaid factual aspect. It being so, it is hard to believe that the engagement of petitioner was need based or was casual or temporary in nature. It is also not the case of the respondents that besides petitioner, there was other faculty to teach the subject of History in the “Sansthan” during the entire period from 2001 till date except that for about less than two years when one Mr. Mahapatra had remained posted in the institution to teach the subject of History. 18. The stand of the respondents that there was no sanctioned vacant post to teach the subject of History in the “Sansthan” also stands falsified by the documents placed on record by the petitioner alongwith CMP No.3227/2019. It is revealed that 17 faculty and 13 non-faculty posts were created with the approval of competent authority for respondent No.3 way back in the year 2000 including 3 posts of Junior Lecturer and one of them being in the subject of History. 19. In Shripal and another Vs Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad 2025 SCC Online SC 221, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 16. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India, in the following paragraphs: 22. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India, in the following paragraphs: 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. ……… 25. 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. These practices manifest in several ways: - Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. - Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. - Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. - Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. - Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. - Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.” 20. Recently in Dharam Singh Vs State of U.P. 2025 SCC Online SC 1735, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of daily waged employees of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, who had rendered services for more than ten years and taking cognizance of ad-hocism and ever-changing stances, of the authorities, in public employment, has observed as under: “When public institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers  are  treated  with  fairness  and  dignity. The controversy before us is not about rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether years of ad hoc engagement, defended by shifting excuses and pleas of financial strain, can be used to deny the rights of those who have kept public institutions running. We resolve it by insisting that public employment should be organised with fairness, reasoned decision making, and respect for the dignity of work.” 21. Finally, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh (supra) has held as under: 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad- hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. 19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization/ retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgment. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment. 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 22. The facts of the case at hand clearly exemplify the conduct of the respondents in denying the right of petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not qualified. Rather the averments made by the petitioner that he was holder of Ph.D. degree since 1991 has remained unrebutted. Despite being possessor of a degree of doctorate in the subject of History, petitioner has been exploited to serve the respondents at meagre and paltry sum of Rs.39,000/- per month. 23. The conduct of the respondents clearly is in teeth of the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shripal and Dharam Singh (Supra). 24. In result, the petition is allowed. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer from the date of filing of the petition and to grant him all consequential benefits by completing the entire exercise within eight weeks from the date of passing of this judgment. 25. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.