CWP-4184-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 239 CWP-4184-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.07.2026 Dr. Narender Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Chaudhary Devi Lal University and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the respondents. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the action of the respondents in deleting his name from the official time table of the Department of Law and withdrawing the academic workload assigned to him as a Resource Person. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to restore the petitioner's academic workload in Political Science and to continue his services till regular appointments are made. The petitioner has further prayed that the alleged oral termination of his engagement be stayed during the pendency of the writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner possesses the requisite educational qualifications MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.10 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-4184-2026 2 including M.Phil. and Ph.D. and belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. Prior to joining the respondent/University, he had worked as an Assistant Professor at Manohar Memorial College, Fatehabad. According to him, on account of shortage of teaching faculty in the Department of Law, he was engaged as a Resource Person vide office order dated 07.02.2025 on lecture basis at the rate of Rs.750/- per lecture subject to a maximum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The petitioner discharged his academic duties diligently and was also entrusted with responsibilities in various committees constituted by the Department, including the Anti-Ragging Committee, Legal Aid Clinic Committee and the Committee for renewal of Bar Council of India approval. His name also figured in the official time table and he regularly delivered lectures in Political Science. On 02.09.2025, a DDR No.21 was registered by the police alleging that the petitioner and certain other persons were consuming liquor while sitting in a parked vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the alleged occurrence took place outside the University campus and the same had no nexus whatsoever with the discharge of petitioner’s academic duties. He further contends that the workload in the University is still available and the respondent/University is still in need of Resource Person. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and file a short affidavit of Dr. Sunil Kumar, Registrar, Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, which is taken on record (Registry to tag the same at appropriate place). Learned MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.10 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-4184-2026 3 counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was never appointed to any sanctioned post and his services were merely availed as a Resource Person on lecture basis at the rate of Rs.750/- per lecture for one hour in order to cover up the syllabus of the students. Such arrangement, according to the respondents, was purely temporary, stop- gap and intended only to meet the exigencies arising during a particular academic session until regular arrangements could be made. He further contends that such an arrangement neither constituted an appointment nor conferred any enforceable legal or statutory right in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is neither an outsourced employee nor a contractual employee and merely within a period of two months of petitioner’s engagement, he was found consuming liquor outside the University in the parking area, which is a public place. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the conduct of a teacher or Resource Person directly impacts the reputation of the educational institution as well as the impression formed by students and society at large. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 5. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that the petitioner was merely engaged as a Resource Person to teach Political Science as a temporary arrangement to meet the shortage of teaching faculty. In fact, his interaction with the students in this regard was limited to 40 hours per month as he was engaged at the rate of Rs.750/- per one-hour lecture MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.10 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-4184-2026 4 subject to a maximum of Rs.30,000/- per month, however, only till regular arrangements were made. In fact, the very office order (Annexure P-3) governing the engagement of the petitioner clearly demonstrates that it was purely stop-gap in nature and was not intended to confer upon the petitioner any substantive or vested right to continue in service beyond the exigencies of the academic session. 6. Moreover, it is evident that the engagement of the petitioner was merely in the nature of that of a guest faculty. As such, he remained a free agent throughout the course of his engagement and could have sought employment outside the respondent-University as well. Additionally, his employment with the respondent-University was not governed by any service conditions that would confer upon him any rights comparable to those bestowed on regular faculty members. 7. Lastly, it is well settled that a writ of mandamus can be issued only where the petitioner/employee establishes the existence of a corresponding legal right and a statutory duty on the part of the respondent/employer. Mere expectation of continuation in a purely temporary arrangement does not mature into an enforceable legal right, capable of claiming protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 435 has categorically held that that the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in order to provide relief by issuing a writ of mandamus MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.10 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-4184-2026 5 where no legal right exists. Speaking through Justice M.M. Sundresh, the following was held: “16. Approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by this Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. In the absence of any legal right, the Court cannot exercise the said power. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the noncompliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative…” 8. In view of the discussion above, this Court finds no reason to exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 02.07.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.10 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.