2025:HHC:14107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.341 of 2020 Reserved on 1.5.2025 Date of Decision: 15.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Navditya Tanwar Kaundal ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Amar Vivek Aggarwal and Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocates. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i. That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued and Annexure P-5 and item No. 3 of Annexure P-6 may very kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of imposing a condition that the confirmation of the petitioner would be without financial benefits with a further direction to the respondent that the petitioner may very kindly be granted all financial benefits from 10th October, 2016 from the date of her confirmed service, in the interest of law and justice. ii. That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued and the decisions taken by agenda item Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of Annexure P-8 may very kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of holding that the confirmation of the employees 2025:HHC:14107 - 2 - would be prospective only, as also to the extent, whereby, the financial benefits to the petitioner have been declined with further Registration to the respondent to grant all financial benefits to the petitioner with effect from 10th October 2016, interest of law and justice. iii. That respondent may very kindly be directed to grant the benefit of increments to the petitioner by granting 1st increment with effect from October, 2017, the 2nd increment on October, 2018 and 3rd increment on October, 2019 and thereafter so on and so forth with arrears accruing with effect from October, 2017 alongwith interest @9% per annum. iv. That respondent may very kindly be directed to grant all financial benefits to the petitioner of regular pay scale and salary with effect from 10th October, 2016 up till 30th December, 2017 alongwith arrears interest @ 9% per annum. v. That respondent may very kindly be directed to grant seniority to the petitioner with effect from 10th October, 2016 and further the respondent may very kindly be directed to grant the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme to the petitioner from 10th October, 2016 alongwith all consequential benefits, in the interest of law and justice.” 2. For having bird’s eye view, facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that Himachal Pradesh National Law University (in short “respondent-University”), which came to be set up in Month of 2016, initiated first ever process of recruitments for various posts of teaching faculty in October 2016 by issuing advertisement dated 21.9.2016 (Annexure P-1), thereby inviting applications for different teaching posts. Though vide aforesaid 2025:HHC:14107 - 3 - advertisement, seven posts of Assistant Professor, in total i.e. three posts in Department of Law, one post each in the Departments of Economics, Sociology, Political Science and English, were advertised, but all were not to be filled up on regular basis, rather it was left to the discretion of the selection committee to decide, which of the posts, shall be filled up on temporary, permanent, ad-hoc or contractual basis. 3. Petitioner herein applied for post of Assistant Professor (Law). Selection Committee headed by the then Vice Chancellor after having considered the candidature of candidates, who had applied for post of Assistant Professors in different disciplines, recommended Dr. Alok Kumar for regular appointment in the subject of Law on UGC scale/grade, while two candidates in department of law and four candidates in Social Science including the petitioner herein were recommended for appointment on contractual basis on different amounts of consolidated salary for a period of one year. Pursuant to aforesaid recommendation made by Selection Committee, petitioner herein came to be offered appointment vide letter dated 8.10.2016 (Annexure P-3), wherein respondent-University, while apprising petitioner with regard to her appointment as Assistant Professor (Law) on consolidated salary of Rs. 50,000-/-pm, also mentioned pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100+6000 Grade Pay plus all allowances admissible under rules, on probation for a period of one year. It also came to be 2025:HHC:14107 - 4 - mentioned in the aforesaid appointment letter that services of the petitioner can be terminated on one month’s notice from either side during the period of probation appointment and she shall have to enter into an agreement of service with the respondent-University on joining. All the selected candidates including petitioner, who were offered appointment on contractual basis, accepted/ joined respective position on respective terms and conditions recommended by the Selection Committee in 2016 and no protest was ever raised by any of the candidates including the petitioner with regard to same. In terms of provisions contained in appointment letter, petitioner herein also entered into agreement dated 10.10.2016 (Annexure P-4), wherein it specifically came to be detailed that present petitioner, shall be on contract period for one year at the first instance and Executive Council, may in its discretion extend the contract for one year. It also came to be mentioned in the aforesaid agreement that petitioner herein shall be paid consolidated salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month. 4. Approximately after one year and two months of execution of aforesaid contract agreement, petitioner herein came to be informed vide communication dated 30.12.2017 (Annexure P-5) that on the basis of confirmation by the Executive Council and with the approval of Vice Chancellor, her services have been confirmed as Assistant Professor (Law) in pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100+6000 Grade Pay plus all allowances as per HPNLU Service Regulations 2016. Though vide 2025:HHC:14107 - 5 - aforesaid communication, services of the petitioner came to be confirmed from the date of her initial appointment, but without any monetary benefits retrospectively. 5. For completion of the facts, it is necessary to take note of the fact that before confirmation of the petitioner against the post of Assistant Professor (Law), respondent-University issued advertisement for filling up the post of Assistant Professor (Law) on regular basis, however, petitioner chose not to apply for the regular post on the basis of assurance given by the respondent-University that her services shall be regularized from the initial date of her appointment. 6. Since petitioner had not applied for regular post of Assistant Professor (Law) in terms of advertisement issued in 2017 and her services were not being regularized, she made a representation, which ultimately came to be decided by Executive Council of the respondent-University in its meeting held on 29.12.2017 (Annexure P- 6), wherein though prayer made on behalf of the petitioner as well as other similarly situate teachers for their confirmation against the post in question from back date was accepted, but they were not held entitled for any financial benefits retrospectively. Interestingly, petitioner never laid challenge to aforesaid proceedings of Executive Council, rather in terms of communication dated 30.12.2017, whereby her services were ordered to be confirmed in terms of decision taken by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 29.12.2017, petitioner 2025:HHC:14107 - 6 - kept on discharging her duties in the Department of Law on regular basis. Though it has been claimed in the petition that petitioner had been making correspondences since the year 2016, when she was given appointment on contract basis for regularization from the initial date of appointment, but no documentary evidence in that regard has been placed on record. Respondent-University in its reply has specifically refuted her claim with regard to filing of repeated representations, rather it has been claimed by the respondents that petitioner, at the first instance, without any protest accepted appointment on contract basis and thereafter on regular basis in terms of communication dated 30.12.2017. As per averments contained in the petition, petitioner in the year 2019, sought some information with regard to her pending representation, but at that juncture, she was told that in her case, a Committee has been constituted. 7. Allegedly, factum qua constitution of One Member Committee was not conveyed to the petitioner and afore Committee in a clandestine manner, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, gave its report, which ultimately came to be accepted by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 23.10.2019. Besides above, petitioner also made a detailed representation dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure P-7), giving therein reference to previous representations. Though petitioner has claimed that Executive Council in afore meeting 2025:HHC:14107 - 7 - took certain decisions contrary to the law as well as regulation framed by the University Grants Commission, but since no specific challenge has been laid to same and same has no connection, if any, with the dispute raised in the instant petition, this Court need not go into that aspect of the matter. 8. In the case of the petitioner, Executive Council in its meeting held on 29.12.2017 modified its earlier decision taken in its 6th meeting held on 23.10.2019, wherein Executive Council while accepting the report of One Member Committee unanimously decided not to give financial benefits from the back to the petitioner. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for reliefs as have been reproduced herein above. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 10. Precisely, the question, which needs determination in the case at hand is “whether initial appointment of the petitioner pursuant to advertisement (Annexure P-1) was on regular basis or on contractual basis? If on contractual basis, whether respondent-University while counting service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis for regularization against the post in question, could have denied financial benefits qua afore period or not?” 2025:HHC:14107 - 8 - 11. Perusal of advertisement notice (Annexure P-1) though indicates that seven posts of Assistant Professor in the respondent University were advertised, but whether such posts were to be filled on regular basis or contract, never came to be specified in the afore advertisement, rather University while issuing aforesaid advertisement, clarified in instructions that “it shall be open for the Selection Committee to decide whether to fill the post on temporary, permanent, ad-hoc or contract basis and the decision of Selection Committee in this regard, shall be final” 12. Though Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, attempted to argue that decision with regard to filling up of the advertised posts on contract, temporary or permanent, could not have been left to the discretion of the Selection Committee, rather it ought to have been specified in the advertisement, but since instructions as noted herein above and detailed in the advertisement never came to be laid challenge by the petitioner and other similarly situate persons, rather they participated in the selection process, there appears to be no justification for this court to go into the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Moreover, no specific challenge has been laid to aforesaid condition in the instant proceedings. Similarly, this Court finds that though careful perusal of appointment letter dated 8.10.2016 (Annexure P-3) suggests that petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of one year and 2025:HHC:14107 - 9 - respondent-University while apprising the petitioner that she shall be paid consolidated salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month, also mentioned pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100+6000 Grade Pay, but once petitioner in terms of aforesaid appointment letter entered into an agreement dated 10.10.2016 (Annexure P-4) with the respondent University, thereby agreeing that she shall be on contract for a period of one year at the first instance and thereafter, Executive Council may in its discretion may extend the contract period by one year coupled with the fact that factum with regard to consolidated salary of Rs.50,000/-, specifically came to be mentioned in the contract agreement, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner that initial appointment of the petitioner was on regular basis. 13. Mistake committed by Registrar of respondent-University while issuing appointment letter mentioning the word “probation”, which had otherwise no authority to issue such letter on account of specific recommendation made by the Selection Committee to offer appointment to the petitioner on contract basis was subsequently rectified by Executive Council vide resolution dated 29.12.2017. 14. Though Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, placed heavy reliance upon resolution passed by the respondent-University dated 29.12.2017, making her appointment on regular basis with retrospective effect without any 2025:HHC:14107 - 10 - financial benefits, but he was unable to dispute that vide aforesaid resolution, services of the petitioner, which were initially on contract, were regularized with retrospective effect. Moreover, Executive Council in its meeting dated 23.10.2019, reconsidered the matter and after perusing report of One Member Committee, decided to give benefit of regularization to the petitioner prospectively. Vide decision dated 23.10.2019, Executive Council clarified that the petitioner shall get notional prospective benefits and not retrospectively over and above freshly recruited candidates. At this stage, it is apt to take note of the fact that petitioner herein, after having entered into contract with respondent-University, remained silent for more than three years. On one hand, respondent-University vide advertisement dated 14.7.2017 invited applications for regular posts of Assistant Professor as per UGC Regulations and on the other hand, taking note of resolution dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Executive Council, proceeded to issue letter dated 30.12.2017, thereby intimating the petitioner that her services have been confirmed as Assistant Professor (Law) in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 +6000 GP plus allowances as admissible under HPNLU Regulation 2016, but without any financial implication retrospectively. Interestingly, petitioner herein without any protest accepted her regularization pursuant to order dated 30.12.2017 and at no point of time, raised issue with regard to financial benefits from back date. Besides above, petitioner neither applied for regular 2025:HHC:14107 - 11 - selection in terms of advertisement dated 14.7.2017 nor claimed any right over the selected candidates at any time. Petitioner for the first time submitted representation dated 15.10.2019 to respondent- University, claiming therein benefits from back date as well as seniority over and above persons, who were selected pursuant to advertisement dated 14.7.2017. While considering the afore prayer made by the petitioner vide representation dated 15.10.2019, Executive Council reconsidered its earlier decision dated 29.12.2017 and resolved to treat the petitioner prospectively on notional basis without any financial or seniority related benefits. In the afore background, petition at hand came to be filed in this court, praying therein for reliefs as have been reproduced herein above. 15. From the above facts, following issues arise for determination: “1. Whether petitioner having accepted and executed an agreement without protest can now be permitted to challenge the terms thereof or claim regularization with all consequential benefits? 2. Whether Executive Council fell in grave error while taking decision dated 23.10.2019, thereby reconsidering its earlier decision dated 29.12.2017 and ordering that petitioner shall be entitled for regularization with prospective effect and not retrospectively over and above freshly recruited candidates. 3.Whether any vested or enforceable right can be said to have accrued to the petitioner on account of issuance of appointment letter dated 8.10.2016, wherein expression “probation” for a period of one year, came to be used erroneously. If yes, whether 2025:HHC:14107 - 12 - Executive Council on account of aforesaid development, could not have rectified its earlier decision dated 29.12.2017, thereby deciding to confirm the services of the petitioner retrospectively?” 16. At the cost of repetition, it is noticed that though respondent-University while issuing appointment letter dated 8.10.2016, informed the petitioner with regard to appointment as Assistant Professor (Law) on consolidated salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month, but if aforesaid appointment letter is read in its entirety, it can be easily concluded that word “probation” was erroneously used. Vide afore appointment letter, petitioner was appointed on consolidated salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month. If it is so, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, to mention pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100+6000 Grade Pay in the afore letter. 17. Leaving everything aside, afore appointment letter specifically apprised petitioner that she shall be required to enter into agreement with respondent-University immediately after joining the post. Petitioner of her own free volition and without there being any external pressure, executed an agreement dated 10.10.2016 (Annexure P-4) therein, agreeing that she shall be on contract for a period of one year at the first instance, which may be further extended by the Executive Council subject to its discretion. 18. Though Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel, attempted to argue that agreement/contract dated 10.10.2016 was 2025:HHC:14107 - 13 - signed by the petitioner under coercion, but having taken note of the background of the petitioner, this court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid submission of Mr. Bhushan. She did not raise the issue of her appointment on contract basis instead of regular basis, for three years. 19. Though respondent-University has seriously refuted claim of the petitioner that she had been filing repeated representations, but even if it is accepted that petitioner had filed representations that may not be of much help in view of the definite law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that repeated representations will not give limitation, rather person claiming to have filed representations is expected to take recourse to legal remedy if representation filed by him/her is not answered/taken note of within a reasonable time. As per material available on record, first representation of the petitioner, which came to be received by the respondent-University is dated 15.10.2019, meaning thereby, for three years, petitioner not only slept over the matter, but she also failed to participate in regular selection process initiated by the respondents vide order dated 14.7.2017, for filing up the post of Assistant Professor on regular basis, as a result thereof, persons, who subsequently came to be selected in the selection process initiated vide afore advertisement, came to be placed higher in seniority than the petitioner. 2025:HHC:14107 - 14 - 20. By now it is well settled that fence sitters cannot be granted any relief over and above such persons, who not only remained negligent about their rights, but also not approached competent court of law at the first instance for redressal of their grievance. 21. Next question which needs to be answered is with regard to resolution dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Executive Council, thereby ordering regularization of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment. Alongwith afore question, question with regard to competence of Executive Council to review is earlier decision also needs to be answered. 22. True it is that Executive Council in its decision dated 29.12.2017 decided to confirm the services of the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment on 8.10.2016, but as has been observed herein above, before order dated 30.12.2017, could be passed by the respondent-University, pursuant to Executive Council’s decision dated 29.12.2017, new persons had not only applied for regular appointment against the post of Assistant Professor in terms of advertisement dated 14.7.2017, but they were also selected. 23. Interestingly, Executive Council vide resolution dated 29.12.2017, without considering that petitioner’s appointment was contractual and she could not be regularized under the afore Guidelines, proceeded to order her regularization from the date of 2025:HHC:14107 - 15 - initial appointment that too without taking note of the fact that before ordering confirmation of the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment, respondent-University had already selected few persons on regular basis in terms of advertisement dated 14.7.2017. Aforesaid inadvertent error committed by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 29.12.2017, was later on brought to the notice of the Executive Council, which in its 6th meeting held on 23.10.2019, after having considered report of One Member Committee of Prof. S.L. Afzal Kadri, concluded that those employees, who were appointed on contract cannot be confirmed retrospectively, thereby adversely effecting the seniority of teachers appointed on regular basis. In the afore meeting, Executive Council specifically ordered that confirmation of contractual employees has to be prospective, not retrospective in nature. It also resolved not to give financial benefits from the back date. 24. After having voluntarily entering into contractual appointment, petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. The doctrine of estoppel by conduct and election fully applies in the case at hand. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled B.L. Sreedhar and Ors. v. K.M. Munireddy (dead) and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 355 has held that a party who knowingly accepts contractual terms cannot later deny them in court of law. 2025:HHC:14107 - 16 - 25. Petitioner’s contractual appointment was on consolidated salary and she was not drawing total gross emoluments or her emoluments being consolidated were far less than the regularly appointment Assistant Professor in the University, as such, clause 10 of UGC Regulations, 2010/2018, pressed into service by Mr. Bhushan, may not be of any help as far as petitioner is concerned. Moreover, Clause 10 talks about counting of past service of direct recruitment and promotion under CAS. As per aforesaid provision, previous regular service whether national or international as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor of equivalent University, should count for direct recruitment and promotion under the CAS of a Teacher, Assistant Professor or Professor of any Nomenclature subject to certain provisos. 26. Since petitioner was not drawing gross emoluments, not less than monthly gross salary of regularly appointed Assistant Professor, rather she was in receipt of consolidated salary of Rs. 50,000/-. UGC Regulations and judgment dated 28.11.2023, passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 50/2019, titled as Dr. Manpreet Arora and Ors. v. Central University of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., pressed into service by the petitioner cannot be invoked in the case at hand. In terms of Rule F (iii), neither services of the petitioner could be regularized from the past date nor she could be given benefit of past contractual service either for financial benefits 2025:HHC:14107 - 17 - nor for the purpose of grant of seniority. Otherwise also, it is not the case of the petitioner that she ever applied for benefit of CAS to the respondent-University, which is mandatory for a candidate to seek benefit of CAS. 27. In case titled National Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. v. Somvir Singh (2006) 5 SCC 493, it specifically came to be held that when the original appointment is contractual, same could not reckon for regularization. Aforesaid view further came to be reiterated in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. L. V. Subramanyeswara and Anr (2007) 5 SCC 326 and State of Orrisa and Anr.v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436. It is apparent from the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if advertisements are issued not for permanent appointment in the regular posts and there are specific clauses in the advertisement giving liberty to the Selection Committee itself for making the contractual appointments, then incumbents who are appointed by such appointments cannot be regularized from the back date as it would amount to a fraud being played upon the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Secretary State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors., 2006 (4) SCC 1. 28. In the case at hand, advertisement dated 21.9.2016 (Annexure P-1) clearly reveals that it was left to the discretion of the Selection Committee to fill up the advertised post either by way of 2025:HHC:14107 - 18 - contract or on regular basis. Selection Committee while making appointment did not make the permanent appointment of six faculty members and they were offered appointment on contractual appointments, which they not only accepted graciously, but also kept on discharging their duties on contract basis till the time they were subsequently regularized pursuant to decision taken by the Executive Council dated 29.12.2017. 29. In National Fertilizers Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court, while referring to the ratio of Uma Devi’s case, categorically held that person who have been only offered appointed for temporary periods or are temporary employees, cannot claim regularization. 30. Having taken note of aforesaid inadvertent error committed by the Executive Council while taking decision vide order dated 29.12.2017, Executive Council constituted One Member Committee, to look into the matter and subsequently, on the basis of report given by the afore Committee, decided to grant regularization to the petitioner prospectively. Once petitioner came to be regularized prospectively and for the period of contract, she had been receiving the consolidated salary of 50,000/- per month, no illegality can be otherwise said to have been committed by the respondent-University while denying financial benefits of the past service to the employee. Since Selection Committee had clearly relied on specific clause of advertisement to make contractual appointment of six faculty 2025:HHC:14107 - 19 - members including the petitioner coupled with the fact that it had also decided to offer appointment to one candidate on regular basis, contractual service of six faculty members including the petitioner could not have been treated as regular from the date of their initial appointment. Such an action otherwise would have caused prejudice to employees/teachers, who would have been appointed subsequently on regular basis and had fulfilled the eligibility requirements. Since petitioner and other teachers neither questioned the original advertisement dated 21.9.2016 nor laid challenge to the decision of Selection Committee in recommending them for contractual appointment initially, petitioner is otherwise estopped from claiming the relief, as has been prayed in the instant petition, with regard to regularization from initial date of appointment that too with financial benefits from the back date. Once afore infirmity came to the notice of the respondent-University, Executive Council took corrective action by reconsidering the matter in its meeting held on 23.10.2019. Afore decision of Executive Council is otherwise based upon report given by the experts, which categorically pointed that petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons cannot be given seniority over and above teachers, who stood appointed against the post in question on regular basis prior to petitioner’s confirmation against the post of Assistant Professor. 2025:HHC:14107 - 20 - 31. Interestingly, petitioner chose not to implead the regularly appointed Assistant Professor, who were selected through proper selection process held in July 2017. Though learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, attempted to argue that impleadment of regularly appointed Professors is not necessary, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Bhushan for the reason that in case petitioner’s prayer for regularization from the back date is accepted, serious prejudice would be caused to regularly appointed Assistant Professors, who admittedly prior to confirmation of the petitioner were appointed against the post in question on regular basis. Impleadment of regular appointees of 2017, is indispensible for adjudication of the petitioner’s claim and no effective relief otherwise can be granted in their absence. 32. In July 2017, University published a fresh advertisement for regular posts as per UGC Regulations. All eligible candidates were invited to apply including those who were already serving on contractual basis. Petitioner did not appear in the said recruitment process, rather kept on waiting for regularization on the basis of her initial contractual appointment made in the year 2016. Since petitioner deliberately chose not to participate in the selection process initiated in the year 2017, she is otherwise estopped to claim the relief as taken note herein above. Admittedly, at the time of petitioner’s selection in the year 2016, no rules were framed by the 2025:HHC:14107 - 21 - respondent-University, rather same came to be notified for the first time on 31.12.2016. Advertisement (Annexure P-1) itself suggests that while inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor, qualification as prescribed under University Grants Commission Regulation 2010 was not essentially required, rather person having good academic record with at least 55% marks or equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed at the Master’s Degree level in relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university, could have applied. Besides above, it was also mentioned that candidates must have cleared the National Eligibility Test conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by UGC like SLET/SET. Though UGC Regulation 2010 on minimum qualifications for appointments of Teachers and Other Academic Staff In Universities and Colleges was very much in vogue, but since at that time University was in infancy stage and it had not framed its own rules, advertisement prescribing therein qualification, as taken note herein above, came to be issued, however, in 2017, advertisement was issued strictly in conformity with clause 10 of UGC Regulation. If it is so, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that Executive Council could not have rectified its earlier decision dated 29.12.2017 by passing resolution dated 20.3.2019. In view of the facts taken note herein above, petitioner could neither be 2025:HHC:14107 - 22 - granted seniority from the back date nor she could have been granted other financial benefits for past contractual service. 33. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and as such, same is dismissed accordingly. However, so far relief claimed qua benefit of CAS, on account of services rendered by the petitioner from 2016 to 2019 is concerned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply to the respondent- University for said benefit, which in turn, shall be considered by the respondent-University in accordance with UGC Regulations and the statutes/ordinances of the University. May 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge