W.P.(C) 12170/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010390642026 + W.P.(C) 12170/2026, CM APPL. 56373-56374/2026 RAJEEV BANSAL .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Monika Arora, Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Ms. Anamika Thakur, Mr. Abhinav Verma, Mr. Aradhya Rev and Mr. Bhaskar Sati, Advocates. versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr. Parvin Bansal, Advocates. Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 10.09.2026 1. The Petitioner has worked as a Guest Teacher (PGT Commerce) in schools run by the Navyug School Educational Society1 since 24th July, 2013. His case is that the description “Guest Teacher” does not reflect the true nature of his engagement. He says that he was selected through a formal selection process, possesses the prescribed qualifications, has served continuously for more than twelve years, and performs substantially the same academic functions as a regularly appointed PGT. Relying on his service record and a certificate issued by the school, he seeks regularisation or, in the alternative, 1 “NSES” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 12:31:33 W.P.(C) 12170/2026 Page 2 of 7 conversion to contractual status with consequential monetary benefits. 2. In support of these reliefs, the Petitioner relies on Jaggo v. Union of India2 and Pawan Sharma v. Government of NCT of Delhi3. He also cites the conversion of two Guest Teachers, Mr. Ashif Ali and Ms. Meenu Uppal, to contractual status in 2019, Council Resolution No. 14(H-10) dated 27th August, 2014, and NSES’s subsequent decision to grant a five-year tenure to certain contractual employees. His grievance is that, despite having served for over twelve years, he continues on a day-to-day basis while persons whom he considers similarly situated have received materially better terms. 3. The Court has considered the submissions and the material on record. The length and continuity of the Petitioner’s service, and the fact that he was selected through a notified process, are relevant, but not conclusive. The inquiry is whether his engagement, viewed in substance, bore the essential features of appointment to the regular cadre. Jaggo cautions against rejecting a claim merely because the engagement was described as “part-time” or “contractual”. It does not, however, dilute the constitutional requirements governing entry into public service. The Court must still examine the source and mode of recruitment, the post against which the person worked, the governing service framework, the terms of engagement and the duties actually discharged. 4. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi4 preserves the constitutional requirement of fair and open recruitment. The later decisions in Jaggo, Pawan Sharma and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand5 require the Court, within that 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 3 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8313 4 (2006) 4 SCC 1 5 SLP (C) No. 30762 of 2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 12:31:33 W.P.(C) 12170/2026 Page 3 of 7 framework, to look beyond labels and examine the substance of the engagement: the process of selection, the post against which the employee worked, the nature of the duties, and the circumstances in which the engagement continued. The claim must therefore be decided on the facts established in each case, and not on nomenclature or length of service alone. 5. The Petitioner’s posting order dated 24th July, 2013, did not appoint him as PGT (Commerce) for a fixed term or on the pay attached to that post. It engaged him as a Guest Teacher, remunerated per teaching period and subject to a maximum of five periods a day. The arrangement was day-to-day and dependent on requirement, with no assured tenure, workload or salary. These features do not merely describe the form of the engagement; they show that it was designed to meet a fluctuating institutional need rather than to fill the cadre post. 6. The clause stating that the engagement would confer no right to appointment cannot, by itself, conclude the matter. Nor can the description “Guest Teacher”. If the record otherwise showed that the Petitioner had been recruited to a sanctioned cadre post and had, in substance, served on the same footing as a regular appointee, a disclaimer in the appointment order would not answer the claim. The difficulty for the Petitioner is that the record does not show those features. 7. There is, in particular, a difference between an engagement made because a vacancy exists and an appointment made to that vacancy. Even if a sanctioned post of PGT (Commerce) was vacant in July 2013, that fact would explain the school’s need for a teacher; it would not, without more, establish that the Petitioner was appointed to the cadre post. Appointment to that post would ordinarily require recruitment under the applicable rules, with open This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 12:31:33 W.P.(C) 12170/2026 Page 4 of 7 competition, reservation and scrutiny by the competent appointing authority. None of those requirements can be presumed merely from the existence of a vacancy or the Petitioner having the prescribed educational qualifications. 8. The Petitioner’s selection through a notified, merit-based process was not a back-door entry. That, however, is not enough. There is no material to show that the process was prescribed for regular PGT recruitment or was substantially equivalent to it. The recruitment rules, advertisement, selection criteria, reservation roster, composition of the selection body and comparative record have not been produced. Nor is it shown that the engaging authority was competent to appoint persons to the regular cadre. Pawan Sharma is therefore distinguishable. The employees there were nursing and paramedical personnel recruited through advertisements against sanctioned posts on contractual terms, and had served continuously for twelve to twenty years. 9. The Petitioner’s service of over twelve years is substantial, however, repeated renewal did not alter his status of a guest teacher. A Guest Teacher meets an immediate need without filling the cadre post. Payment is tied to lectures taken, workload may vary, and the engagement remains subject to institutional need and regular recruitment. 10. The experience certificate relied upon by the Petitioner records his engagement as PGT (Commerce) from 24th July, 2013, till date, but also expressly describes the nature of his appointment as that of a Guest Teacher and records his last salary as drawn per day. It does not establish appointment against a sanctioned post, cadre placement or employment under the rules governing regular PGTs. 11. The Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court in State of Bihar This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 12:31:33 W.P.(C) 12170/2026 Page 5 of 7 v. Rajesh Kumar Singh6 is instructive. The Court held that the Guest Teachers had been appointed for a temporary period, by way of an interim arrangement, till the posts could be filled through regular appointment. The Court accordingly considered the terms of the appointment and the scheme, rather than the mere length of the Guest Teachers’ service, and held that their continuation could not be claimed once regular appointments had been made against the sanctioned and vacant posts. 12. The claim of parity also does not advance the case of the Petitioner. The minutes of the meeting of the Board of Governors of NSES held on 1st May 2018 record a proposal to convert Mr. Ashif Ali, Primary Teacher (Academic), and Ms. Meenu Uppal, Primary Teacher (Art), from Guest Teacher status to contractual engagement. The minutes also record that both had earlier served on contract in Navyug schools for more than ten years before working as Guest Teachers. 13. The Petitioner has not established that he was similarly placed. He is a PGT (Commerce), whereas the aforesaid employees were Primary Teachers and, more importantly, had earlier rendered more than ten years of contractual service. The decision in their cases does not, in the absence of any material showing a general policy or entitlement, establish a right of Guest Teachers to conversion to contractual status. 14. Council Resolution No. 14(H-10) applies only to existing contractual employees and regulates their pay, allowances and, in some cases, tenure. It neither converts Guest Teachers into contractual employees nor confers a right to regular appointment, seniority or promotion. 6 LPA No. 238/2025, decided on 5th May 2026. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 12:31:33 W.P.(C) 12170/2026 Page 6 of 7 15. The 2025 office order likewise grants five-year terms only to nineteen identified contractual employees, subject to verification that they worked against sanctioned posts. The order provides no route for converting Guest Teachers. 16. The communication dated 8th January 2025 is not inconsistent with these later developments. The Respondents stated only that NDMC/NSES had no policy for regularising Guest Teachers and that the Haryana policy relied upon did not apply. Extending the tenure of persons already on contract under Resolution No. 14(H-10) does not contradict that position. 17. The claim for equal pay is distinct. State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh7 permits a temporary employee performing the same duties and bearing the same responsibilities as a regular employee to claim the minimum of the regular pay scale. It does not grant automatic parity in allowances or service benefits, and the claimant must prove substantial equality of work. 18. The Petitioner claims that he teaches Commerce, undertakes examination work and has acted as a CBSE evaluator, as do regular PGTs. These common academic functions are relevant, but they do not by themselves establish the substantial equality of duties and responsibilities required by Jagjit Singh. The record contains no comparison of prescribed working hours, teaching load, administrative duties, institutional responsibilities or service conditions. In the absence of that evidence, the Court cannot determine whether the Petitioner performs work equal in all material respects to that of a regular PGT. The claim to the minimum of the regular pay scale, as well as the broader claim for retrospective pay and 7 (2017) 1 SCC 148 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 12:31:33 W.P.(C) 12170/2026 Page 7 of 7 allowances, must therefore fail. 19. The plea of mala fides is also unsubstantiated. The Petitioner’s representation dated 23rd June, 2025, questioned the shorter extension but did not allege retaliation and even contemplated inadvertent error. No contemporaneous material establishes retaliatory intent or a causal link. The shorter extension alone is insufficient. 20. The Court is conscious that the Petitioner has taught in NSES schools for over twelve years and that prolonged reliance on Guest Teachers may warrant administrative attention. But sympathy, continuity and institutional need cannot substitute for entry into public service under the applicable rules and policy. Conclusion 21. None of the reliefs claimed can therefore be granted. Regularisation fails because the Petitioner has not established recruitment to a sanctioned cadre post through the prescribed process or its substantial equivalent. Conversion to contractual status cannot be directed retrospectively in the absence of a governing policy or proof that the cited comparators were similarly placed. Council Resolution No. 14(H-10) applies only to persons already engaged on contract. The claim for the minimum of the regular pay scale fails for want of the comparison required by Jagjit Singh, while the allegation of mala fides is unsupported by contemporaneous material. 22. The writ petition and pending applications are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 nk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2026 at 12:31:33