Surender Kumar & Ors. vs Kurukshetra University & Anr.

and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., CWP-and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., CWP--17206-17206--20142014, was set aside. Further, the petitioners’ regularization has no concern with the policy of the year 18.06.2014, which was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in Yogesh Tyagi (supra)Yogesh Tyagi (supra). The judgment rendered in RajRaj Rani’s case (supra)Rani’s case (supra) directed regularization of the petitioners in terms of the applicable regularization policy that was issued on 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-7). Moreover, the Yogesh Tyagi (supra)Yogesh Tyagi (supra) judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court has been set aside and the regularization policy of the Government of Haryana was upheld. The Advocate General appeared before the Division Bench in LPA-LPA--1810 of1810 of 20252025 titled Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and othersAas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others, and directed fresh consideration of individual claims for regularization in the light of the principles laid down in Madan Singh’sMadan Singh’s case (supra).case (supra).

Learned counsel for the petitioners has limited his prayer to the extent that the present petition be treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be decided by the respondents/competent authority in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh (supra)Madan Singh (supra), in a time-bound manner, by passing a speaking order after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and to save judicial time and litigation costs of the respondents, the present writ petition is decided in limine with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh (supra)Madan Singh (supra). A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by the respondents.

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

27.08.2026 (HARPREET SINGH(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)BRAR) ^{parul verma} JUDGEJUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No