Naresh Kumar and others vs State of Haryana and another

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

With the consent of both the parties, the aforementioned writ petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP-28166-2026.

This Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and regularize the services of the petitioners under the Regularization Policies dated 16.06.2014 (Annexure P-17) and 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-18), in terms of the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh vs. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026 (Annexure P-19) and judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sukhvinder Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and another, CWP-5686-2016, decided on 25.05.2026 (Annexure P-20), from the date the petitioners became eligible under the said policies, along with all consequential benefits, including fixation of their pay in the regular pay scale and release of all consequential monetary and service benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were engaged as Guest Faculty Teachers pursuant to the policies issued in November/December 2005 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) after a transparent selection process through public advertisement (Annexure P-3), and have continuously discharged their teaching duties for nearly two decades against sanctioned vacancies. It is further contended that the Regularization Policies dated 16.06.2014 (Annexure P-17) and 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-18) provide for regularization of eligible contractual employees, and the validity of the said Policies has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh (supra). This Court has also directed regularization of similarly situated Guest Faculty Teachers in Sukhvinder Singh (supra).

He further submits that despite the petitioners fulfilling the requisite conditions, their services have not been regularized. The representation dated 20.06.2026 (Annexure P-21) seeking regularization is still pending and undecided.

Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.2/competent authority to decide the representation dated 26.06.2026 (Annexure P-21) in the light of (Annexures P-17 to P-20 & P-22) by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

Learned State counsel, appearing on advanced notice, submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to the respondent No.2/competent authority for time-bound consideration and decision of the representation dated 20.06.2026 (Annexure P-21) of the petitioners by passing a speaking order.

In view of the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioners without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of and respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to hear and decide the representation dated 20.06.2026 (Annexure P-21) filed by the petitioners in the light of (Annexures P-17 to P-20 & P-22) in a time bound manner and pass a speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same be granted to him forthwith by respondents/competent authority.

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

Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected case(s).