Case Note & Summary
The writ petitions were filed by three guest lecturers in the Department of Women’s Studies at Gulbarga University, seeking quashing of a recruitment notification dated 07.01.2023 and an endorsement dated 12.01.2024 rejecting their claim for regularization. The petitioners claimed that they had been continuously engaged as guest lecturers since 2003-2005, totaling nearly 15 years of service, and were assigned duties of regular lecturers such as conducting examinations and hostel warden responsibilities. They relied on an earlier order of a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No. 207758-760/2017 directing the University to consider their representations, and the precedent of K.S. Malipatil, a guest lecturer in the Department of Social Works who was regularized following court orders. The University opposed the claim, contending that there were clear breaks in the petitioners’ engagement, that they were appointed purely as guest lecturers to cope with additional work, and that regularization would violate the statutory recruitment procedure under Sections 53-56 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, which mandated advertisement, roster, and assessment. The University also admitted that it had not framed any scheme or statute for regularization of guest lecturers and that prior Government permission would be needed. After examining the service certificates and noting that the University had admitted the petitioners’ qualifications and the fact of long service, the Court found that despite occasional breaks, the petitioners had rendered continuous service for nearly 15 years. It observed that the University did not refute the Malipatil precedent, which had culminated in regularization after judicial intervention. The Court held that the factual continuity of service coupled with the performance of core academic duties created a legitimate expectation of regularization, and the issuance of a fresh recruitment notification without first considering the petitioners’ long service was arbitrary. The impugned notification and endorsement were quashed to the extent of the petitioners, and the University was directed to either frame a scheme for regularization of long-serving guest lecturers or consider the petitioners’ case in line with the Syndicate’s earlier resolution for Malipatil, within six months. The Court emphasized that mere absence of a statutory scheme cannot defeat the right to be considered for regularization when the factum of long service is established.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularization of Ad Hoc Employees - Long Continuous Service - Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, Sections 53-56 - Petitioners, appointed as guest lecturers since 2003-2005, rendered nearly 15 years of service performing duties of regular lecturers; held that despite technical breaks, the factual continuity and length of service create a legitimate expectation for regularization, and the University cannot resort to fresh recruitment without first considering regularization of long-serving ad hoc appointees (Paras 1-4, 11-12). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 - In the absence of a specific statute for regularization, the Court can direct the University to frame an appropriate scheme or consider the case of the petitioners in parity with a similar case (K.S. Malipatil) where regularization was granted following earlier court orders; failure to act on previous direction to consider representations is arbitrary (Paras 7-10, 17). C) Education Law - University Appointments - Recruitment Procedure - Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, Sections 53-56 - The University contended that regularization would violate the statutory recruitment process requiring advertisement, roster, and assessment; however, the Court held that long-serving guest lecturers who have filled sanctioned posts and performed core academic duties cannot be denied consideration solely on procedural grounds, especially when vacancies exist (Paras 14-15, 20). D) Service Law - Parity in Employment - Precedent - Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 - The undisputed precedent of K.S. Malipatil, a similarly situated guest lecturer regularized after court intervention, mandates that the petitioners must be considered on the same footing; the University's failure to do so is discriminatory (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether guest lecturers who have served for more than 15 years in the University are entitled to regularization of their services and whether the University's recruitment notification and rejection of their representation are arbitrary and illegal.
Final Decision
The impugned notification dated 07.01.2023 and endorsement dated 12.01.2024 were quashed to the extent of the petitioners. The University was directed to either frame a scheme for regularization of long-serving guest lecturers or consider the petitioners' case in light of the Syndicate's earlier resolution in K.S. Malipatil's case, and to consider their representations within six months, taking into account academic performance and UGC qualifications.
Law Points
- Continuous service of over 15 years by guest lecturers creates a legitimate expectation of regularization
- University must frame a scheme for regularization or consider case in parity with past precedents
- Appointment of guest lecturers without following regular recruitment process under Sections 53-56 does not bar regularization when posts are vacant and service is long
- Executive instructions cannot override need for regularization when factual continuity is established
