2026:HHC:24800 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.4254 of 2019 Decided on : 23.06.2026 Uploaded on: 24.06.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Sanjay Sharma and others ...Petitioners Versus Chaudhary Sharvan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyala Palampur and another ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal and Mr. Shashwat Dadwal, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2-State. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioners by way of present petition have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing advertisement dated 26.12.2012 Annexure P 11 which has been issued by the respondent University vide which it has invited applications for appointment to various posts in the University including posts of Assistant Professors / Equivalent in various disciplines, to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:24800 the extent it invites applications for appointment to posts of Assistant Professors / Equivalent. (b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent University not to fill up any post of Associate Professor / Equivalent and Assistant Professor / Equivalent in any discipline in the Respondent University till the removal of ‘Co Terminus' from the appointment letters of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointments. (c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari setting aside and quashing any appointment made on regular basis by Respondent University against post of Associate Professor / Equivalent and Assistant Professor / Equivalent in any discipline in the Respondent University during the pendency of the writ petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his case is covered by the decision rendered by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP(OA) No.2021 of 2019, titled, Rajan Katoch vs. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya and another. Before coming to the judgment passed by the Co- ordinate Bench, it would be relevant to mention that the petitioners are working with respondent No.1-University, since 2000 onwards and their appointments were on co- terminus basis and they are still working. It has further been averred that subsequently their services were regularized in 3 2026:HHC:24800 the University, but the only plea which they have claimed is that the word co-terminus be removed from their service/appointment letters. Even the case of the petitioners was recommended by respondent No.1- University, as is evident from perusal of communication dated 09.09.2008 (Annexure P-4) and subsequently, vide communication dated 13.02.2009, specifically mentioning therein that the demand of the petitioners seems to be genuine and the word co-terminus ex-cadre, may be removed from the service/appointment letters. 3. Respondent No.1-University filed reply to the petition and not specifically disputed the said facts. However, it has been submitted that as per advertisement No.1/2005, candidate selected against the post will not be entitled to regular appointment as the post being co- terminus with the projects. Respondent No.1- University has not disputed the communications addressed to respondent No.2, wherein the claim has been raised by the petitioners to remove the word co-terminus ex-cadre from the terms and conditions of the appointment letters. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 4 2026:HHC:24800 5. As per the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Rajan Katoch’s case (supra), this Court has taken note of the fact that the words co-terminus project mentioned in the appointment letters of other persons were deleted, but the same was not deleted in the case of the petitioner. It has also been noticed in the judgment that in the year 2005, respondent-University had again advertised the posts of Assistant Analytical Chemist (Bio-chemistry) along with other posts to be filled up on regular/ad hoc basis, but the fact remains that no regular appointment was made, as a result of which, the petitioner continued to work as Assistant Analytical Chemist (Bio-chemistry) on the strength of initial appointment made in the year 2000. In the present case too, some of the petitioners have been appointed since 2000 and once the Co-ordinate Bench has already adjudicated upon the similar issue and ordered to regularize the services of the petitioner against the post in question, from the date persons appointed along with him on co-terminus/ad-hoc basis in the year 2000, along with all consequential benefits, the petitioners who are also similarly situate deserves to get the same treatment. Since the facts of the present case are akin to the facts in the 5 2026:HHC:24800 aforementioned case, the judgment passed by the Co- ordinate Bench in Rajan Katoch’s case (supra) shall be applied mutatis mutandis in the case of the petitioners too and the same reliefs shall be extended to them. 6. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to extend the same benefits to the petitioners as granted to the petitioner in CWP(OA) No.2021 of 2019, titled, Rajan Katoch vs. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya and another, within a period of three months from today. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 23 rd June, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge