The High Court of Himachal Pradesh clarified that contractual lecturers who have completed two years of continuous service are entitled to regularisation from the date of completion, and that a policy condition seeking prospective effect cannot defeat this statutory and constitutional right.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Mohinder Singh and three other lecturers appointed on contract in the School Education Department, challenged the State's failure to regularise them from 1 April 2024 despite having completed the requisite two years of continuous contractual service on 31 March 2024. They sought quashing of Clause IX of the 2 December 2023 regularisation policy and a writ of mandamus directing regularisation with all consequential benefits.
Key Facts
- 02 Nov 2019: Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission issued Advertisement No 18/2019 for Lecturer (School-New) posts on contract basis.
- 26 Nov 2021: Appointment order issued, offering a consolidated amount of Rs 14,500 per month (with annual increase of Rs 440).
- 29 Nov 2021: Mohinder Singh joined as Lecturer (School-New).
- 07 Dec 2021: Bala Devi joined.
- 03 Dec 2021: Deena Kumari joined.
- 28 Nov 2021: Nitesh Bhatia joined.
- 28 Dec 2021: State Government notified a policy reducing the contract period for regularisation from three years to two years for those who had completed two years of continuous service as on 30 Sept 2021.
- 30 Sept 2023: Another policy notified regularisation for those completing two years of service as on 31 Mar 2023.
- 02 Dec 2023: Policy (Annexure P-4) notified regularisation of contractual appointees who had completed two years of continuous service as on 31 Mar 2024 (Clause IX stipulated prospective effect of the order).
- 22 Feb 2024: Director of Higher Education sent communication (Annexure P-5) to Deputy Directors to furnish names of eligible contractual incumbents.
- 14 Oct 2024, 30 Nov 2024, 02 Dec 2024: Petitioners submitted representations seeking regularisation from 1 Apr 2024.
- 06 Jul 2024: State regularised the petitioners prospectively, issuing orders dated 06 Jul 2024 (Annexure P-6).
- 09 May 2025: Court issued notice to the State.
- 18 Jul 2025: State filed reply-affidavit.
- 10 Aug 2026: Judgment delivered.
Procedural History
- Writ Petition filed before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (date not specified) seeking quash of Clause IX, mandamus for regularisation from 1 Apr 2024, summons of the entire record, and monetary benefits with 12% interest.
- 09 May 2025: Court issued notice to the State.
- 18 Jul 2025: State filed reply-affidavit acknowledging the policy but contending delay due to Model Code of Conduct and invoking Clause IX.
- 10 Aug 2026: Court delivered its judgment.
Relief Sought
- Quash Clause IX of the 2 Dec 2023 notification and issue a writ of mandamus directing regularisation from 1 Apr 2024.
- Summon the entire case record.
- Direct the State to release all consequential monetary benefits with interest at 12% per annum.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether contractual lecturers who completed two years of continuous service are entitled to regularisation from the date of completion, and whether Clause IX of the 2 Dec 2023 regularisation policy, which makes the order prospective, can validly defeat that entitlement.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The petitioners relied on Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution, asserting a fundamental right to consideration for regularisation once the statutory conditions are met.
- They invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation, citing past practice and the express terms of the 2 Dec 2023 policy that entitlement accrues on 1 Apr 2024.
- They argued that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules do not prohibit regularisation of contractual appointees and that Clause IX is arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees.
For the Respondents
- The State contended that the delay was caused by the Model Code of Conduct for Lok Sabha elections (16 Mar 2024-6 Jun 2024) and subsequent bye-elections, justifying the 06 Jul 2024 order.
- It relied on Clause IX, asserting that the policy expressly provides for prospective effect of regularisation orders, and that the State retains discretion to determine the date of effect.
- The State argued that the petitioners’ eligibility was undisputed, so the prospective date was a permissible administrative decision.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework, constitutional provisions, and the policy language. It noted that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Lecturer (School-New) allow 50 % of posts to be filled on contract basis and do not bar subsequent regularisation. The Court observed that the petitioners had fulfilled all statutory criteria, performed duties identical to regular incumbents, and completed two years of continuous service before the policy cut-off date of 31 Mar 2024.
"The petitioners having completed two years of continuous contractual service on 31 Mar 2024 accrued a fundamental right of consideration for regularisation w.e.f. 01 Apr 2024, and the State's belated regularisation on 06 Jul 2024 defeats that right."
The Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation requires the State to honor the express promise in the 2 Dec 2023 policy, absent a reasonable basis for deviation. Past practice of regularising contractual appointees from the date of service completion reinforced this expectation. The Court found Clause IX to be ultra vires because it effectively nullified the accrued right and introduced arbitrariness, violating Articles 14 and 16.
The Model Code of Conduct argument was rejected; the Court stated that once the eligibility is undisputed, the State is bound to act, and the lifting of the code did not excuse the delay. Consequently, Clause IX was declared inapplicable and inoperative.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court quashed Clause IX of the 2 Dec 2023 regularisation policy, directed the State to consider the petitioners for regularisation as Lecturer (School-New) from 1 April 2024, to issue modified orders with regular pay scale and arrears, and to release all consequential benefits within six weeks. Costs were awarded against the State.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Legitimate Expectation Enforced
- Courts will enforce policy promises that create a legitimate expectation, especially where past administrative practice supports it.
- Administrative discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily to defeat accrued rights.
Policy Conditions Cannot Override Statutory Rights
- Clauses that make orders prospective must not contravene constitutional guarantees or statutory entitlements.
- Any deviation from a policy must be justified on reasonable grounds, not mere administrative convenience.
Timely Regularisation Required
-
Once the eligibility criteria are met, the employing authority must act without undue delay.
-
Delays attributed to external factors (e.g., Model Code) will not excuse non-compliance where the right to consideration has already vested.
-
Practitioners should scrutinise policy clauses for consistency with constitutional principles.
-
Counsel should raise legitimate expectation and past practice early in litigation.
-
Employers must align regularisation orders with the date of service completion to avoid judicial intervention.
