Vivek Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner alongwith all consequential benefits on the post of Guest Teacher in terms of the Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) as well as in terms of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2026 SCC Online (SC) 628.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was engaged as Guest Teacher (Science) with the respondent-department on 20.11.2006 and was posted at Government Middle School, Balauli, District Yamunanagar. Further, from 01.04.2009 onwards, the engagement of the petitioner continued on contract basis as discernible from Experience Certificate (Annexure P2), and as such, he has worked uninterruptedly for nearly two decades without any adverse entry. The Government of Haryana has issued regularization policies from time to time. The policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) was issued for regularization of Group C and D employees who had rendered more than three years of service as on 28.05.2014 and the petitioner fulfils all the eligibility conditions. Further, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra) (Annexure P-4), has upheld the validity of the regularization policies dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014. Further, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Sukhvinder Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another, CWP-5686-2016, decided on 25.05.2026 , and the petitioner’s claim is identically placed and, as such, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regularization.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has limited his prayer to the extent that the present petition be treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be decided by the respondent No.2/competent authority in the light of judgment rendered by this Court in Sukhvinder Singh’s case (supra) in a time-bound manner, by passing a speaking order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

Upon advance notice, learned State counsel appears on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition would be considered by passing a reasoned speaking order in accordance with the law by respondent No.2/competent authority.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2/competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of Sukhvinder Singh’s case (supra). A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed after affording the petitioner 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 petitioner.

Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by the respondent No.2/competent authority.

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