Dr. Surender vs Chaudhary Devi Lal University

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for disposal of the main case in terms of judgments passed by this Court in CWP No.5651 of 2026 titled as Bal Krishan v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University, (Annexure A-1) and CWP No.373 of 2016 titled as Dr. Krishan Kumar and others v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University and others (Annexure A-2).

Notice of the application.

Mr. Indresh Goel, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the writ petition can be disposed of in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in Bal Krishan’s case (supra) in which reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Madan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2026 SCC Online (SC) 628) and, thus, prays for taking up of the main case for today itself for disposal.

In view of the above, the present application is allowed and with the consent of both the parties, the abovenoted writ petition is taken up on board for final decision for today itself.

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent-University to consider the petitioner’s claim for absorption on a regular basis in the light of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in SLP Nos.16389 and 16415 of 2009, titled as State of Haryana v. Ashok Kumar and others (Annexure P-14), as well as the order dated 08.08.2014 (Annexure P-15), whereby the Department regularized the services of 226 Instructors. The petitioner claims to possess the qualifications prescribed under the Statutory Rules and to have been appointed against a regular sanctioned vacant post after following a transparent selection process consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, involving issuance of a public notice and conduct of interviews. He has also completed more than 12 years of service. The stipulation incorporated in the agreement—obtained by the respondent-University by virtue of its dominant position—that the petitioner would not claim regularization is asserted to be void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and, therefore, unenforceable in law. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner in Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, from 30.08.2010 till date against a regular sanctioned post, notwithstanding the notional breaks occasioned by circumstances beyond his control, including summer vacations, as qualifying service for pensionary and other consequential benefits, in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.14238 of 1991, titled as Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has limited his prayer to the extent that the present writ petition be treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be ordered to be considered and decided by the respondent in the light of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra), by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to him.

Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection in case direction is issued to the respondent to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner in the light of aforesaid judgment passed in Madan Singh’s case (supra) by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided a bunch of cases on 16.04.2026 and Madan Singh’s case (supra) is the lead case, wherein regularization policy dated 18.06.2014 has been upheld. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: --

In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and decide claim of the petitioner in terms of judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra) by passing a speaking order after affording him an opportunity of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken shall be conveyed to the petitioner.

Needless to observe, in case the petitioner is found entitled to the relief claimed, all consequential benefits shall also be granted expeditiously, in accordance with law.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.