JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the above captioned cases and similar reliefs have been prayed for, this Court, after clubbing all the cases together, heard them jointly and are being disposed of vide the common judgment. 2. By way of instant petitions, petitioners have prayed for the reliefs, which are similar, as such, reliefs prayed for in CWP No. 623 of 2025 are reproduced herein below:- “(i) That the impugned acts of the respondent-University above stated being contrary to all norms of justice may be quashed and set aside with direction to the respondent-University to consider the petitioner having been appointed on regular basis on and w.e.f. 21.3.2022 for all intents and purposes i.e. for the purpose of pay, seniority etc. etc. (ii) That the impugned act of the respondent in giving fictional breaks in the third year of contractual services of the petitioner being contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and by this Hon’ble Court may very kindly be quashed and set- aside with directions to the respondent-University to regularize the period of fictional breaks of the petitioner; (iii) That in the alternative direction may be issued to the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner on and w.e.f. 21.3.2022 on completion of continuous service on contract basis for a period of two years to secure the ends of law and justice; (iv) That verbal termination/ retrenchment/ dispensing with the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2025 may be quashed and set aside with direction to the respondent-University to treat the petitioner in continuous service without any break of any kind whatsoever and to allow the petitioner to continue serving as security guard without keeping any ill will/malice against the petitioner for approaching this Hon’ble Court for the redressal of his grievances.” 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as highlighted in the petitions and further canvassed by learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that though the respondent-University had issued advertisement dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) for filling up various posts including the post of Security Guard (Male) on regular basis, but while making appointment, it resorted to pick and choose method by offering regular appointment to some of the candidates, whereas petitioners, who though were also declared successful, was/were offered appointment on contract basis. 4. 4. For having bird’s eye view, relevant facts as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that vide advertisement dated 12.08.2021(Annexure P-1), respondent-University invited applications for various posts including the post of Security Guard (Male) figuring at Sr. No.10 in Group-D. As per the advertisement, 10 posts were available (UR-6, SC-2, OBC-1 and EWS-1). It specifically came to be notified in the advertisement that number of post(s) is/are tentative and may increase or decrease from time to time for different categories of posts. Therefore, candidates are requested to apply under the respective category(s) as the post of any reserved category could be included to be filled up on the basis of afore advertisement. It also came to be notified that number of vacancies & reservations of posts was liable to be altered without any notice. Relevant portion of the advertisement is as under:- Group D 10 Security Guard (Male) 10 (UR-6, SC-2, OBC-1, EWS-1) 4900-10680+1300 G.P. 10th pass from a recognized Board of School Education. Preferable: Ex-Servicemen who have been released from the service most recently. The Ex-Serviceman male Security Guards should be preferably below the age of 50 years 1200/- INSTRUCTIONS/CONDITIONS AND ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION (S) AND EXPERIENCE ETC. i. The University reserves the right to dispense with the written examination for any post keeping in view the number of applications viz-a-viz vacancies and other circumstances. In lieu of marks for written test, the University may prescribe a direct selection criterion based on essential qualifications prescribe in the Regulations, (as applicable), and may directly conduct the Interview, Skill test/ evaluation of all the eligible applicants, as the case may be. ii. Date for determining eligibility of all candidates in respect of Essential Qualification(s) and Experience, if any, etc. shall be determinable according to the prescribed closing date for submission of On-Line Recruitment Application (ORA) Form. iii. Age: The minimum and maximum age limit of 18 to 45 years shall be determinable according to the prescribed closing date for submission of On-Line Recruitment Application (ORA) Form. iv. The upper age limit is relaxable by five years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes, Persons with disabilities & Children/Grand Children of Freedom Fighters of Himachal Pradesh. The upper age relaxation is also available to Ex- servicemen candidates of H.P. as per provisions of relevant rules. iv. The upper age limit is relaxable by five years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes, Persons with disabilities & Children/Grand Children of Freedom Fighters of Himachal Pradesh. The upper age relaxation is also available to Ex- servicemen candidates of H.P. as per provisions of relevant rules. v. The candidates are advised to note down the USER ID and PASSWORD and this user ID and password will be applicable for all future reference regarding the examination/tests, downloading roll numbers/call letters/entering fee detail etc. No other assistance can be provided in these issues. vi. The candidates are advised to give their working mobile number and email ID, used by them in the online recruitment (ORA) application and ensure their working till the completion of selection process to avoid inconvenience. There is no other means of contacting them except their email & Mobile numbers. vii. The candidates shall fill up their complete and correct particulars in the ORA forms to avoid rejection of candidature. Furnishing incorrect information may disqualify the candidate from appearing for recruitment to any post to be advertised by the University for a period of three years. viii. No other mode except online payment (through the ‘payment gateway’ prescribed and available on the recruitment portal of the university, is acceptable for deposit of fees. ix. No. of post(s) is/ are tentative and may increase or decrease from time to time for different categories of posts may be added. Therefore, candidates are requested to apply under their respective category (s) as the post of any reserved category can be included to be filled up on the basis of this advertisement. The number of vacancies & reservation of post is liable to be altered without any notice. x. The candidates must keep on checking the website regularly for any further information regarding their roll numbers, admit card, evaluation schedule etc. xi. As per the Government notification vide No. PER(AP)-C-B- 1/2019 Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Personnel (AP-III) dated 11.06.2019 when an Economically Weaker Sections EWS candidate is not available for selection, the post(s) will be treated automatically as de- reserved and will be filled up from a non EWS candidate of unreserved category. xii. xi. As per the Government notification vide No. PER(AP)-C-B- 1/2019 Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Personnel (AP-III) dated 11.06.2019 when an Economically Weaker Sections EWS candidate is not available for selection, the post(s) will be treated automatically as de- reserved and will be filled up from a non EWS candidate of unreserved category. xii. In cases of posts under categories ‘C’ and ‘D’ the candidate shall be eligible for applying and appointment, if he/she has passed Matriculation and 10+2 from any school / institution situated within Himachal Pradesh. Provided this condition shall not apply to Bonafide Himachalis. xiii. Dispute, if any, shall be subject to Court jurisdictions of HP. xiv. The University reserves the right to change any other terms of the advertisement or to rectify the inadvertent errors at any stage xv. For all Groups of posts, terms and conditions of eligibility, appointment and services shall be governed by the relevant rules of the University. xvi. Applicants must upload experience certificate, wherever required, from appropriate institution/authority clearly specifying duration of service, pay scale and last gross salary drawn. xvii. All further communications related to the above recruitments shall be through letter/ notices displayed on the University website i.e. http://www.hpnlu.ac.in. xviii. UR- unreserved; SC- Scheduled Casts; OBC- other backward classes; EWS- economically weaker sections. xix. Candidate are Requested to Check there email (Inbox as wall as spam) for login User Id and Password, after filling up the Registration form on recruitment portal Link at University Website. Sd/- Registrar 5. Petitioners herein, being fully eligible, appeared in the interview and were also declared successful, and the result was declared on 13.05.2022 (Annexure P-7). Careful perusal of communication dated 13.05.2022, if perused in its entirety, reveals that 10 posts of Security Guard were filled up on regular basis, whereas petitioners, who had also applied under the same advertisement, came to be offered appointment on contract basis for a period of one year, as is evident from appointment letter dated 20.3.2022(Annexure P-2). 6. Careful perusal of the appointment letter clearly reveals that though petitioners herein were offered appointment on contractual basis, but on fully salary in the pay scale of Rs. 4900-10680 + 1300 GP alongwith other allowances as per the relevant Regulations of the Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla. 6. Careful perusal of the appointment letter clearly reveals that though petitioners herein were offered appointment on contractual basis, but on fully salary in the pay scale of Rs. 4900-10680 + 1300 GP alongwith other allowances as per the relevant Regulations of the Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla. Since petitioners herein were without any job, they accepted contractual appointment, which was initially for a period of one year, but their contract came to be extended for almost 1½ years, as a result thereof, they rendered services for more than 2½ with fictional breaks before final disengagement on 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-9). In the aforesaid back ground petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following reliefs as have been reproduced hereinabove. 7. Pursuant to the notices in the instant proceedings, the respondent-University has filed reply, wherein specific objections with regard to the maintainability of the petitions have been taken. 8. Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel representing the respondent-University, while referring to the reply filed by the respondent-University, argued that present petitions are not maintainable as petitioners failed to avail alternative remedy available to them under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for short ‘Act’). He submitted that once specific remedy under the Act was available to the petitioners, they were estopped from invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that since no legal right or fundamental right of the petitioners have been adversely affected, warranting the invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitions having been filed by the petitioners deserve outright rejection. He further argued that the respondent-University does not fall within the meaning of State as enshrined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such, no writ is maintainable against the State. He further submitted that at no point of time petitioners were offered appointment on regular basis, rather advertisement itself suggests that only 10 posts on regular basis were advertised. He submitted that since petitioners at the time of interview were not able to secure higher marks, they could not be offered appointment against the regular post, rather such candidates, who had obtained more marks than the petitioners were offered appointment on regular basis. He submitted that since petitioners at the time of interview were not able to secure higher marks, they could not be offered appointment against the regular post, rather such candidates, who had obtained more marks than the petitioners were offered appointment on regular basis. Learned counsel representing the respondent-University further submitted that no doubt, pursuant to the provision contained under advertisement, the number of posts of Security Guards were increased, but the Selection Committee found petitioners suitable only for appointment against the post of Security Guards on contract basis for the reason that at particular time only 10 posts of Security Guard on regular basis were available. He submitted that mere selection of the petitioners as Security Guards on contract basis does not confer any right to claim regularization, especially when there were no regular post over and above 10 posts, which already stand filled up pursuant to selection in terms of advertisement dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure P-1). 9. He further submitted that since contractual services of the petitioners were not renewed after 31.12.2024, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice nor has any other right vested in the petitioners warranting the adjudication by this Court. He further submitted that by now it is well settled that mere completion of requirement of 240 days’ does not entitle a workman to claim regularization in service. He submitted that it is well established law that non-renewal of the services of a daily wager/contractual employee upon the completion of his daily wage/contractual tenure is ordinarily not subject to judicial review. He further argued that at no point of time appointment letter or contract of service ever been laid challenge by the petitioners in appropriate proceedings and as such, they are estopped from questioning the same after more than three years, especially when, pursuant to their appointment, they continued to render services on contract basis for more than three years. He submitted that since the respondent-University is a new university and had initially proposed engaging manpower through an outsource agency to meet specific and exigent staffing requirements, however said proposal was withdrawn vide Annexure R-1. He further submitted that certain positions, such as those involving service in girls’ hostels, may require female staff, rendering some existing male staff surplus to requirement, and in this regard, the respondent-University intends to revisit the requirement afresh in due course, based on necessity and proper assessment. He further submitted that certain positions, such as those involving service in girls’ hostels, may require female staff, rendering some existing male staff surplus to requirement, and in this regard, the respondent-University intends to revisit the requirement afresh in due course, based on necessity and proper assessment. He further submitted that petitioners have concealed material facts from the court inasmuch as there had been regular selection of Security Guards for 10 regular posts, but since the respondent-University failed to make it to the regular list (Annexures P-7 & R-2), coupled with the fact that at the relevant time the respondent-University felt the need to engage more additional hands on contract basis, no illegality can be said to have been committed the respondent- University, while offering appointment to the petitioners against the post of Security Guard on contact basis. He further submitted that since Government of Himachal Pradesh has denied any financial aid to the respondent-University vide Annexure R-2, respondent-University felt it necessary to review its manpower and accordingly the contract period of contractual staff, whose services were no longer required, was not reviewed further. While inviting attention of this Court to Annexure R-4, learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted that University has reviewed its sanctioned strength and as of today, there are only 17 posts of Security Guard, out of which 10 posts already stand filled up. He further submitted that since respondent- University intends to appoint 7 Security Guards for the female hostel and for the time being such posts have been filled up on temporary basis, petitioners herein cannot claim regularization against such posts. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondent- University submitted that policy of State of Himachal Pradesh for regularization is not applicable to the respondent-University because the respondent-University is an autonomous body, having its own set of rules and regulations, and it is governed by its own service conditions and requirements of work. 10. To the contrary, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Yogesh Chandel, Advocate, representing the petitioner(s), submitted that perusal of advertisement dated 12.08.2021 itself reveals that same was issued for regular posts, but yet petitioners were given contractual appointment, which amounts to changing the rules of the game midway. 10. To the contrary, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Yogesh Chandel, Advocate, representing the petitioner(s), submitted that perusal of advertisement dated 12.08.2021 itself reveals that same was issued for regular posts, but yet petitioners were given contractual appointment, which amounts to changing the rules of the game midway. While inviting attention of this Court to the list of selected candidates (Annexure R-7), learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners argued that the respondent- University made appointments of some candidates on a regular basis and of others on a contractual basis, despite arising from the same advertisement, which is violative of the constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further argued that petitioners did not challenge the conditions of service at the first instance since the respondent-University is a mighty employer and petitioners, being a petty employees and unemployed at that time, were not in a position to negotiate with the university. While relying upon the policy of the government dated 02.12.2023 (Annexure P-4), learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the employees, who are due to complete two years of continuous service as on 31.03.2024 are required to be regularized, and the petitioners being in service from 21.03.2022 to 20.03.2024 without any break, deserve to be regularized as per afore policy. While referring to Himachal Pradesh National Law University Executive and Service Regulations, 2020, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per Clause 2.5.2, all appointments shall be in the nature of ‘regular’ appointment. He submitted that now as per the advertisement and the said clause, it is clear that the appointment could have been made on regular basis only. He also submitted that the word used in the clause is ‘shall,’ which makes it mandatory and not discretionary. He submitted that now as per the advertisement and the said clause, it is clear that the appointment could have been made on regular basis only. He also submitted that the word used in the clause is ‘shall,’ which makes it mandatory and not discretionary. Relevant provision, as detailed hereinabove, is reproduced herein below:- “2.5.2 Appointment and Nature of Appointments:- (i) All appointments under these regulations shall be in the nature of regular appointment from the date of appointment subject to requirements of probation as provided under these regulations; (ii) All personnel so appointed shall be eligible for full remuneration and emoluments as provided for under the provisions of these regulations from the date of appointment; “Provided that a person who has superannuated or taken VRS from a Governmental Department or a private entity may be appointed on contractual basis for a consolidated slary of Rs. 50,000/- +10,000/- conveyance allowance; (iii) Direct appointment shall not be made more than 50% of the posts, in a post cadre where the cadre consists of 4 or more than 4 posts. In such cadres 505 may be filled by way of direct recruitment. (iv) Roster of reservation with reference to posts for Direct Recruitment by open completion, in respect of Groups C, and D posts/services (Appendix-VI).” 11. While referring to Annexure R-2 annexed with the reply of the respondent-University, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 17 sanctioned posts have been shown to be available with the respondent-University, whereas actual sanctioned strength is 30 (Annexure P10). He submitted that 30 posts were available at the time of issuance of advertisement, but yet only 10 posts were advertised. He further submitted that Chapter I of Part II, Clause 1.1. of the 2020 Regulations provides that the service conditions of contractual employees are to be regularized as per the stipulations/guidelines issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce Clause 1.1 of 2020 Regulations, which reads as under:- “1.1. of the 2020 Regulations provides that the service conditions of contractual employees are to be regularized as per the stipulations/guidelines issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce Clause 1.1 of 2020 Regulations, which reads as under:- “1.1. Appointment to various non-teaching posts of the University and terms and conditions of service thereof shall be regulated by these Regulations:- Provided that the service condition of duly appointed contractual employees, who were entitled, as per the then applicable Himachal Pradesh Government Rules, to be regularized at the time of their contractual appointment, shall be governed by “ The Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla, Executive and Service Regulations, 2020” after their regularization.” 12. He submitted that since petitioners had worked for 240 days in each calendar year as per requirement, they ought to have been regularized in view of regularization policy of the Government (Annexure P-54). He submitted that though respondent-University repeatedly extended the contract of the petitioners, but same was done by giving fictional breaks. He submitted that respondent-University purposely gave such fictional breaks with a view to prevent the petitioners from claiming regularization on the basis of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. While referring to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammad Abdul Quadir vs. DGP, (2009) 6 SCC 611 , learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that giving fictional breaks by the employer has been held to be untenable, and as such ‘break’ period is liable to be taken as continuous service of the petitioners. He further submitted that such fictional breaks were given to the petitioners in the third year of service. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after dispensing with the services of the petitioners, respondent- University issued fresh advertisement on 08.01.2025 for filling up some posts afresh, but vide notice dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure R-1) the said advertisement was withdrawn. He submitted that bare perusal of aforesaid advertisement itself suggests that there are posts and work are available with the respondent-University, but yet petitioners, who were appointed as Security Guards through due process of law against the regular post, have been illegally disengaged. 13. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record carefully. 14. He submitted that bare perusal of aforesaid advertisement itself suggests that there are posts and work are available with the respondent-University, but yet petitioners, who were appointed as Security Guards through due process of law against the regular post, have been illegally disengaged. 13. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record carefully. 14. Admittedly, careful perusal of advertisement Annexure P-1, issued by the respondent-University , whereby a number of non-teaching posts came to be advertised, clearly reveals that under Group-D, 10 posts of Security Guard(Male) on regular basis were advertised. Out of the said 10 pots, six were reserved for general category (UR), 2 SC, 1, OBC and 1 for EWS in the pay scale of Rs. 4900-10680+1300 GP. 15. Since the number of posts was tentative and could be increased or decreased from time to time for different categories of posts in terms of advertisement (See: Clause IV) of instructions/conditions and essential qualification and experience etc., appended thereto), the Selection Committee recommended as many as 26 persons for the post of Security Guard (Male) (on regular basis), as is evident from the minutes of the Selection Committee pertaining to the post Security Guard (Male) (Regular basis) vide Advertisement No. HPNLU-A(7)-11(ADVT.)/2021/11, dated 12.08.2021(Annexure R-2). 16. As per aforesaid minutes, total 270 candidates applied for the post, out of which 196 candidates appeared for the interview for the post of Security Guard(Male)(Regular basis). The Selection Committee, having taken note of the fact that University was in need to fill more than 10 posts of Security Guard, proceeded to recommend 26 persons for appointment against the post of Security Guard on regular basis. 17. Though, learned counsel representing the respondent-University attempted to argue that since only 17 posts of Security Guards were available, there was no occasion for the Selection Committee to recommend 26 persons. He submitted that though the Selection Committee recommended 26 persons to be appointed on regular basis, but the University administration, taking note of the fact that only 10 posts of Security Guard were available, proceeded to grant appointment on regular basis to first 10 candidates, whereas the petitioners herein alongwith other persons were offered appointment on contractual basis. However, this Court, having carefully perused Annexure P-10 annexed with the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, i.e. roster for non-teaching posts, is persuaded to agree with Mr. However, this Court, having carefully perused Annexure P-10 annexed with the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, i.e. roster for non-teaching posts, is persuaded to agree with Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners that there are 30 sanctioned posts of Security Guard, out of which 15 are reserved for general category, 6 for SC, 1 for ST, 5 for OBC and 3 ECW. If it is so, it cannot be said that selection committee wrongly recommended 26 candidates for appointment on regular basis, especially when there is nothing to suggest that prior to recommendation made by the Selection Committee, some persons already stood employed as Security Guards on regular basis. Though, at this stage, learned counsel for the respondent-University attempted to argue that university on account of various factors subsequently reviewed its cadre strength and roster approved by 22nd minutes of the Executive Council held on 10th March, 2025 provided for only 17 posts of Security Guards, as is evident of Annexure R-5. 18. True, it is that bare perusal of Annexures R-4 & 5 suggests that on account of various factors, the Executive Council in it is meeting held on 12th March, 2025 reviewed the cadre strength and decided to reduce the regular posts of the Security Guard from 30 to 17. However, there is no dispute that prior to aforesaid review, 30 sanctioned posts of Security Guards were available with the respondent-University. If it is so, Selection Committee in its meeting held on 12.08.2021 (Annexure R-2) rightly recommended 26 persons to be appointed against the post of Security Guards on regular basis. True, it is that that through advertisement, as detailed hereinabove, 10 posts on regular basis came to be advertised for the post of security guard, but as has been taken note hereinabove, number of posts indicated in the advertisement was tentative and same could increase or decrease from time to time for different categories of the posts. The Selection Committee, having taken note of requirement of the respondent- University, decided to fill up more than 10 posts of Security Guard (Annexure R-2). The Selection Committee, having taken note of requirement of the respondent- University, decided to fill up more than 10 posts of Security Guard (Annexure R-2). Though, Selection Committee recommended all 26 persons to be appointed on regular basis, but the respondent-university of its own without there being any justification, proceeded to offer appointment on regular basis to first 10 candidates, whereas other candidates including petitioners were offered appointment on contractual basis, which otherwise could not have been done for the reason stated hereinabove. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7602 of 2010, titled Om Parkash vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, wherein it has been held as under:- “11. Now significantly, in the R & P Rules for appointment of teachers, no such specific amendment was carried out to the effect that henceforth appointments can be made only or also on contract basis. This was so done only in terms of notification issued on 20th September, 2010 when the Himachal Pradesh Higher Education, Post Graduate Teacher-Class-III (non -gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2010, were notified. 12. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, since petitioners’ services were taken over w.e.f. 6.2.2007, i.e. prior to issuance of the aforesaid Rules, petitions need to be allowed. As on this date, there was no provision in the rules, enabling the State to take over services of the petitioners on contract basis. No doubt, Government took a policy decision to make all appointments on contract basis after 12th December, 2003, but then this could be done only by amending the rules and incorporating specific conditions therein. Executive power could not have been exercised, in view of specific prior notification, occupying the specified field. Also, policy decision did not supersede/repeal earlier decision in that regard. Rules were in existence. In the absence of same, Government could not have taken over services of the petitioners on contract basis, particularly when their initial appointment was on regular basis.” 19. In afore case, petitioners prayed for quashment of different orders, whereby they stood appointed on contract basis. They ought to have been given appointment on regular basis and as such, their appointment be treated on regular basis from the date of their appointment by the State, with all consequential benefits. In afore case, petitioners prayed for quashment of different orders, whereby they stood appointed on contract basis. They ought to have been given appointment on regular basis and as such, their appointment be treated on regular basis from the date of their appointment by the State, with all consequential benefits. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court having taken note of the fact that there was no provision in R&P Rules for filling up post on contract basis, allowed the petitions and directed the respondents to consider the petitioners’ case for appointment as Lecturer (School Cadre) in their respective Subjects on regular basis w.e.f. 6.2.2007, the date on which College and services of the petitioners were actually taken over. Since in the case at hand, at the time of issuance of advertisement, there was no provision for filling up the post on contract basis, rather advertisement itself provided for filling up the post on regular basis, coupled with the fact that Selection Committee recommended inasmuch as 26 candidates against the post of Security Guard on regular basis, there was no occasion, if any, for the respondent to appoint petitioners herein on contract basis. 20. True, it is that petitioners herein, without raising any protest, accepted their appointment on contract basis, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioners, who were recommended to be appointed against regular post, had no option, but to accept the said offer. Since the petitioners, who otherwise appeared to be well educated, were in dire need of employment and as such, they proceeded to accept the post of Security Guards on contract basis. 21. There is another aspect of the matter, which needs to be taken note of, that petitioners herein, though were offered appointment on contract basis, but was paid full salary i.e. Rs. 4900-10680+1300 GP. Petitioners, being on receiving end, could not bargain with the might University, which, on its own whims and fancies, has been appointing person’s dehors the rules. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 190 of 2022, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Rajinder Fishta, wherein it has been held as under:- “21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly, has observed as under: “89………...We have a Constitution for our country. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly, has observed as under: “89………...We have a Constitution for our country. Our judges are bound by their oath to "uphold the Constitution and the laws". The Constitution was enacted to secure to all the citizens of this country social and economic justice. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. The principle deducible from the above discussions on this part of the case is in consonance with right and reason, intended to secure social and economic justice and conforms to the mandate of the great equality clause in Art. 14. This principle is that, the courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power. It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of all bargains of this type. No court can visualize the different situations which can arise in the affairs of men. One can only attempt to give some illustrations. For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties. It will apply where the inequality is the result of circumstances, whether of the creation of the parties or not. It will apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without them. It will also apply where a man has no choice, or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be. This principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the. contracting parties is equal or almost equal. This principle may not apply where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial transaction. This principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the. contracting parties is equal or almost equal. This principle may not apply where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial transaction. In today's complex world of giant corporations with their vast infrastructural organizations and with the State through its instrumentalities and agencies entering into almost every branch of industry and commerce, there can be myriad situations which result in unfair and unreasonable bargains between parties possessing wholly disproportionate and unequal bargaining power. These cases can neither be enumerated nor fully illustrated. The court must judge each case on its, own facts and circumstances.” 22. This principal has been re-iterated in several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the decision in LIC of India & another Vs. Consumer Education & Research Centre & others, (1995) 5 SCC 482 . 23. Therefore, having regard to the hugely unequal bargaining power between the respondent and the appellants, it cannot be said that the respondent had a choice in the matter at all and he had acquiesced in the condition of the extension order dated 30.05.2013 that he would not get any additional increment.” 22. This Court finds that respondent-University extended the contract service of the petitioners from 24.03.2024 to 23.09.2024 and for two days i.e. 21.09.2024 and 22.09.2024, they were given fictional breaks. The respondent-University, while giving another extension w.e.f. 23.09.2024 from 25.09.2024 to 31.12.2024, intentionally gave a break of one day i.e.24.09.2024 to the petitioners purposely to prevent them from completing 240 days in each calendar year, which could further enable them to seek regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 23. Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammad Abdul Quadir case (supra) has deprecated the practice of giving fictional breaks by employer. Relevant paras of aforesaid judgment are as under:- “16. We may next consider the challenge to the procedure of annual termination and reappointment introduced by the Circular dated 17- 3-1995. The PIF Scheme and the PIF Additional Scheme were introduced by the Government of India. The Scheme does not contemplate or require such periodical termination and reappointment. Only ex-servicemen are eligible to be selected under the Scheme and that too after undergoing regular selection process under the Scheme. The PIF Scheme and the PIF Additional Scheme were introduced by the Government of India. The Scheme does not contemplate or require such periodical termination and reappointment. Only ex-servicemen are eligible to be selected under the Scheme and that too after undergoing regular selection process under the Scheme. They joined the Scheme being under the impression that they will be continued as long as the PIF Additional Scheme was continued. The artificial annual breaks and reappointments were introduced by the State agency entrusted with the operation of the Scheme. This Court has always frowned upon artificial breaks in service.” 24. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 645 of 2011, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Keshav Ram, decided on 30.08.2017, wherein it has been held as under:- “7. Question with regard to the condonation of short breaks also came to be considered by the Division Bench in CWP No. 4367 of 2009, decided on 1.12.2009, wherein Division Bench of this Court drawing strength from aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir case supra, categorically held that in light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, respondents ought to have condoned the shortage of few days while calculating 240 days in a particular calendar year in the case at hand. It also emerges from perusal of Annexure R-1 placed on record by the respondents that petitioner had worked for 210 days from April, 1994 to December, 1994 and thereafter, in the years, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, petitioner had worked for 227, 230, 229 and 227 days respectively. It also emerge from the record that in the year, 1999 (January, 1999 to April, 1999), petitioner had worked for 76 days. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that the petitioner at any point of time abandoned the job, rather learned Single Judge has rightly observed that endeavor of such person would be always to complete 240 days to earn the benefit of regularization.” 25. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that the petitioner at any point of time abandoned the job, rather learned Single Judge has rightly observed that endeavor of such person would be always to complete 240 days to earn the benefit of regularization.” 25. It is not in dispute that after the oral termination of the petitioners, the work assigned to them prior to their disengagement, was entrusted to the sweeper and Peons, as is evident from Duty Chart dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-9), which itself suggest that though work was very much available, but yet taking advantage of the poor plight of the petitioners, the respondent-University, using its might, proceeded to disengage him. Most importantly, respondent-University after, dispensing with the services of the petitioners, issued fresh advertisement on 08.01.2025 for filling up certain posts, but subsequently on receipt of summons in the present petition, it proceeded to withdraw the same. Such act of the respondent-University itself suggest that petitioners, despite there being availability of work, were thrown out/disengaged for no justifiable reasons. Having noticed act of the respondent-University in giving fictional breaks to the petitioners, while they were on contract, coupled with the fact that after their disengagement, respondent issued fresh advertisement dated 08.01.2025 inviting therein applications for some posts including the post of Security Guard, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that entire exercise undertaken by the respondent was to prevent petitioners from completing 240 days in each calendar year, so that they could not subsequently claim regularization in terms of the policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 26. Though, learned counsel representing the respondent-University vehemently argued that the policy of regularization of Government of Himachal Pradesh is not applicable to the respondent-University, as the University being an autonomous body has its own set of rules and regulations, but careful perusal of Clause 1.1 containing in Chapter I of Part II of the Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla, Executive and Service Regulations, 2020, reveals that service conditions of contractual employees are to be regularized/ governed as per the stipulations/notifications issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. Similarly, Clause 2.5.2 of afore Regulations itself suggests that all appointments shall be in the nature of regular appointments. Similarly, Clause 2.5.2 of afore Regulations itself suggests that all appointments shall be in the nature of regular appointments. It appears that respondent-University, having taken note of aforesaid provisions contained in the Regulations have purposely provided for regular appointments against various non teaching staff in Advertisement No. HPNLU-A(7)-11(ADVT.)/2021/11, dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure P-1), but subsequently without there being any plausible justification, proceeded to grant appointment to some of the candidates on regular basis and some of the candidates on contract basis. Since as per aforesaid Regulations, all posts were to be filled up on regular basis and there is no provision contained in the Regulations for appointment on contract/temporary basis, appointment given to the petitioners in terms of the advertisement issued in the year, 2021 could not have been made on contractual basis. 27. No doubt, vide communication dated 10.01.2024 (Annexure R-3) issued under the signatures of Under Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Registrar, Himachal Pradesh National Law University came to be apprised that State Government is unable to provide any financial assistance, but that could not be a ground to disengage the staff, who was appointed strictly in terms of the Regulations as well as by due process of law. Though, having taken note of aforesaid communication dated 10.01.2024, Committee with regard to assessment of requirement of non-teaching staff submitted its report recommending discontinuation of all existing contractual and daily wage employees after 31st December, 2024 with further recommendation to hire/engage staff through outsourcing agency, but the staff engaged prior to afore decision could not have been disengaged in the manner they have been disengaged, especially when afore Committee itself recommended for appointment of 7 female Security guards, 11 sweepers (six males and five females), one Electrician, one Plumber, two Malis and one Carpenter meaning thereby, though there was a requirement of Security Guards, but yet in the name appointing female Security Guards, petitioner(s), who had rendered his services for more than four years to the utmost satisfaction of the University were disengaged in most clandestine manner. 28. Though, learned counsel for the respondent- University attempted to argue that seven female Security Guards are required for the Security of female hostel, but he was unable to dispute that as per present arrangement, there is a two tiers security system in the female hostels. 28. Though, learned counsel for the respondent- University attempted to argue that seven female Security Guards are required for the Security of female hostel, but he was unable to dispute that as per present arrangement, there is a two tiers security system in the female hostels. Security inside hostel is looked after by female Security Guards, whereas outer security is being provided by male Security Guards. Otherwise also, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that at present, save and except the female hostels, security outside the premises of the respondent-University is being managed by male Security Guards. If it is so, security of the hostel, especially female hostels, cannot be taken so lightly, rather for effective guarding, male security guards are required to be posted alongwith female Security Guards. It is also not in dispute that all boys’ hostels of the respondent-University are situated outside the respondent- University, rather they are located in the private buildings that too at the distance of 4 to 5 KM from the respondent-University. 10 Security Guards appointed on regular basis otherwise cannot be said to be sufficient for security of University premises, girls’ hostels and boys’ hostels. Taking note of requirement of Security Guards, respondent-University itself had provided for 30 regular posts of Security Guards, as is evident from the details of sanctioned, filled and vacant posts/positions of non-teaching staff (Annexure P-10). 29. Leaving everything aside, this Court is of the view that though the respondent-University is well within its right to review the cadre strength taking note of various factors, but certainly employees, who stood appointed prior to such cadre review against various posts including Security Guard, could not have been thrown out in the name of cadre review. 30. Though, learned counsel representing the respondent-University argued that since petitioners herein were appointed on contract basis and they were not on the regular roll of the respondent-University, they were rightly disengaged in view of the cadre review, whereby posts of Security Guard were reduced from 30 to 17(10 male and 7 female), but this Court is not impressed with aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the respondent- University for the reason that very act of respondent inasmuch as offering appointment to the petitioners on contract basis is illegal, for the reason that advertisement itself was for regular appointment of Security Guards. Moreover, the Selection Committee, taking note of the requirement of the University, recommended 26 candidates for appointment against the post of Security Guard on regular basis (Annexure R-2), but yet respondent taking undue advantage of plight of poor persons i.e. petitioners, offered them appointment on contract basis, which came to be extended twice. 31. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the petitioners herein had no option, but to accept the appointment on contract, on account of their being in the need of employment. No doubt, petitioners failed to lay challenge to the appointment letter at first instance, but this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were repeatedly assured by the University that, in times to come, his services would be regularized, as was otherwise the case with the teaching staff. A number of teaching staff, who were appointed on contract basis, subsequently came to be regularized, which fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 32. There is another aspect of the matter that since Himachal Pradesh National Law University Executive and Service Regulations, 2020, which govern the service conditions of employees of the University, clearly provide that appointment shall be in the nature of ‘regular’ appointment, respondent-University otherwise could not have offered appointment on temporary basis. Till the time aforesaid regulations are amended or substituted pursuant to decision of cadre review taken by the respondent and further approved by Academic Council, respondent University, though as per its requirement may proceed to fill up lesser number of vacancies of Security Guards, but certainly it cannot change the nature of regular appointment to contract/temporary basis. 33. At this stage, it is apparent to take note of the fact that though, by way of filing reply, question with regard to maintainability came to be raised at the behest of the respondent, but during proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the respondent fairly stated that he does not press ground of maintainability as taken in the reply. Otherwise also, this Court finds that bare perusal of 2(s), wherein “workman” has been defined under Industrial Dispute Act, coupled with the fact that petitioners herein are in receipt of full salary i.e. pay scale of Rs. Rs. 4900-10680 + 1300 GP alongwith other allowances, clearly shows that they did not fall in the category of “workman”. Otherwise also, this Court finds that bare perusal of 2(s), wherein “workman” has been defined under Industrial Dispute Act, coupled with the fact that petitioners herein are in receipt of full salary i.e. pay scale of Rs. Rs. 4900-10680 + 1300 GP alongwith other allowances, clearly shows that they did not fall in the category of “workman”. If it is so, appropriate remedy, if any, for redressal of their grievance is to file present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, another argument raised at the behest of the respondent that National Law University does not fall within the definition of “State” as per Article 12 of the Constitution, is not tenable in view of law laid down by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in CWP No. 9223 of 2026, titled Dr. Anjana Vyas vs. National Law University and others, decided on 17.04.2017, wherein it has been categorically held that institution engaged in imparting higher education in various subjects, which is declared as a deemed University, is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Aforesaid decision rendered by High Court of Rajasthan is based upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Dr. Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University and others, AIR 2016 SC 73 . Since learned counsel for the respondent has fairly accepted the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court sees no necessity to reproduce the same, as it would be unnecessarily make the judgment bulkier. 34. During the proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the respondent-University placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 , to state that when appointment is not made under any rule and without any competition, it will not confer any right upon the appointee to continue and the same would end, in the case of the contractual appointment, when the contract comes to an end, and in case of causal/daily wage when the services are discontinued. This Court has no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law, rather the same, being binding needs to be accepted, however, having carefully perused aforesaid judgment vis-a-vis facts of the given case, same is not applicable in the cases at hand. This Court has no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law, rather the same, being binding needs to be accepted, however, having carefully perused aforesaid judgment vis-a-vis facts of the given case, same is not applicable in the cases at hand. Though, in the case at hand the petitioners have been given appointment on contract basis, but as has been noticed hereinabove, petitioners though were required to be offered appointment on regular basis pursuant to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, but respondent-University taking undue advantage of situation and poor plight, proceeded to offer appointment to them on contract basis, which repeatedly came to be renewed. Since the very act of the respondent-University in offering appointment to the petitioners on contract basis is illegal, and this Court is of the view that petitioners ought to have been offered appointment on regular basis from day one, judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra) cannot be made applicable. 35. Another judgment pressed into service by learned counsel for the respondent-University i.e. titled Gridco Limited and another vs. Sadananda Doloi and others, 2011 (15) SCC 16 , is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that power to make a contractual employment is implicit in the power to make a regular permanent appointment, unless the statute under which the authority exercises its powers and discharges its functions or the Rules & Regulations governing recruitment under the authority specifically forbid the making of such an appointment. In the case at hand, as has been noticed hereinabove, advertisement was issued for regular appointment and Selection Committee, taking note of condition contained in the advertisement, which specifically provided that number of posts is tentative and may increase or decrease from time to time for different categories, recommended 26 candidates including the petitioners for appointment against the post of Security Guard on regular basis, coupled with the fact that. Clause 2.5.2 of Himachal Pradesh National Law University Executive and Service Regulations 2020, which governs the service condition of employees of the University, clearly provides that all the appointments shall be in the nature of regular appointment, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, for the respondents to offer appointment on contract basis. 36. Clause 2.5.2 of Himachal Pradesh National Law University Executive and Service Regulations 2020, which governs the service condition of employees of the University, clearly provides that all the appointments shall be in the nature of regular appointment, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, for the respondents to offer appointment on contract basis. 36. Though, aforesaid judgment pressed into service suggests that appointment made on contract basis, if any, does not constitute a breach of rules which do not provide for making contractual appointments, but having taken note of the fact that names of the petitioners were recommended for regular appointment by the Selection Committee and at that relevant time, sanctioned strength of Security Guard was 30, rightful claim of the petitioners cannot be permitted to be defeated on the submissions/arguments raised at the behest of the respondent-University. Similarly, this Court finds no application of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Yogesh Mahajan vs. R.C. Deka, Director AIIMS, 2018 (3) SCC 218 , wherein it came to be ruled that a contractual employee has no right to contract renewal unless a statutory or other legal right exists in his favour. There cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law. Though, in the case at hand, contract of the petitioners were renewed from time to time, but since for the reason detailed in the earlier part of the judgment, very appointment of the petitioners on contract was bad, there is no necessity to go into the question of right, if any, of the contractual employee to contract renewal. 37. Since it is none of the case of the respondent- University that at the time of appointment of the petitioners pursuant to advertisement dated 12.08.2021, petitioners were not eligible or that their appointment was dehors the Regulations, judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra) otherwise cannot be made applicable, for the reason that in the afore judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that regular appointment, as per the constitutional scheme for public employment, must be the rule, there is nothing in the constitutional scheme which prohibits the Union or State Government or their instrumentalities from engaging persons temporarily or on daily wages, without following the required procedure, to meet the needs of the situation. In the case at hand, petitioners were not only duly qualified, but were also recommended for regular appointment by the Selection Committee, which made its recommendations after taking note of the availability of vacancies as well as requirement of the respondent-University. 38. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein, this Court finds merit in the present petitions and accordingly same are allowed. The orders of verbal disengagement of the petitioners from the posts of Security Guards are set-aside, with a further direction to the respondent- University to reengage the petitioners on the post of Security Guard. The petitioners shall be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis from the date of their initial appointment pursuant to the recommendation made by the Selection Board. Since petitioners have been receiving regular pay scale during their period of engagement, they shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period they remained disengaged, but such period shall be counted for all other consequential benefits including seniority. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.