Item No. S-2 to 7 HPNLU Vs. Lalit Kumar a/w connected matters. CMP(M) No. 09 of 2026 a/w CMPs (M) No. 10, 18, 19, 20 & 21 of 2026. 07.01.2026. Present: Mr. Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate (through V.C.) with Mr. Gaurav Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh K. Parmar, Advocate, for the applicant(s)/appellant(s). Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Athrav Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent(s). Caveat Petition No. 528 of 2026 Caveat Petition No. 530 of 2026 Caveat Petition No. 529 of 2026 Caveat Petition No. 527 of 2026 Caveat Petition No. 526 of 2026 Discharged. The petitions stand disposed of. CMP(M) No. 09 of 2026 CMP(M) No. 10 of 2026 CMP(M) No. 18 of 2026 CMP(M) No. 19 of 2026 CMP(M) No. 20 of 2026 CMP(M) No. 21 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the applications duly supported by the affidavit(s) of Sh. Anil Kumar, Registrar, Himachal Pradesh National Law University, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Therefore, the delay of 52 days in filing the appeals is condoned. The applications stand disposed of. Appeals be registered. It has been brought to our notice that apparently against ten advertised posts, there was recommendation of 26 candidates by the Selection Committee for appointment on the posts of Security Guards. The Executive Council on 17.03.2022, had specifically appointed only ten Security Guards on regular basis and other ten Security Guards were appointed on contractual basis for one year on full salary as payable to the regular Security Guards. 2. On the basis of the said decision, 33 candidates were appointed on regular basis against various categories including the ten Security Guards, apart from the other ten Security Guards, who were appointed on contract basis, as evident from letter dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P-7), 3. The appointment letters were accordingly issued to the petitioners to be appointed on contractual basis for one year on full salary as payable to the regular Security Guards on 20.03.2022 (Annexure P-2). Their services were thereafter extended and the last extension was granted on 23.09.2024 after giving the usual break of one day for 24.09.2024, whereby the six Security Guards, i.e. the petitioners, were re-appointed w.e.f. 25.09.2024 to 31.12.2024. 4. The writ petitions were accordingly filed seeking direction to the University to consider the petitioners being appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 21.03.2022 for the purpose of pay and seniority, challenging the fictional breaks given in the third year of their contractual services, seeking regularization of their services on and w.e.f 21.03.2022 and challenging the dispensing with their services w.e.f. 01.01.2025. 5. Prima-facie, once only 10 posts of Security Guards were advertised, though there was a clause as such for addition/reduction of the posts, merely the recommendation as such of 26 candidates by the Selection Committee would not prevail and in such circumstances, the present petitioners were only appointed on contract basis, though there was provision for regular appointment. 6. Regularization policy of the State as such is also opposed on the ground that it had not been adopted by the University and reference was made to the letter dated 10.01.2024 issued by the State that the University had to work on its own and the State Government is unable to provide any financial assistance to it. 7. Thus, prima-facie, we are of the considered opinion that the regularization as prayed for on the strength of the State policy, is not tenable which has been directed by the learned Single Judge apart from the fact that a categorical decision as such was taken apparently before dispensing with the services as such, that it required some female Security Guards and that male Security Guards were not required beyond 31.12.2024, and in such circumstances, they took a decision to appoint seven Female Security Guards. 8. In such circumstances, the observations of the learned Single Judge that a periphery of Male Security Guard were required to justify the retention of the contractual employees would also require consideration. Admit. Issue post admission notice. Mr. Athrav Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. List for regular hearing in the month of May, 2026. Operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed till further orders. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge January 07, 2026 (hemlata)