Delhi High Court Directs Regularisation of Long-Serving DTU Contract Employees; Orders Creation of Supernumerary Posts Where Vacancies or Sanctioned Posts Are Unavailable Within Three Months

Delhi High Court Modifies DTU Regularisation Judgment; Replaces General Post-Augmentation Exercise With Specific Direction to Create Supernumerary Posts Where Necessary

Facts

The Delhi High Court decided two intra-court appeals arising from a Single Judge judgment dated 10 March 2026 concerning contractual employees of Delhi Technological University (DTU). One appeal was filed by the employees and the other by DTU.

The employees had initially been engaged in 2010 and 2011 on posts including Office Assistant, Senior Office Assistant, Junior Office Assistant, Assistant Librarian, Driver, Technical Assistant, Senior Mechanic, Junior Technical Assistant and Assistant Storekeeper. They had continued working for DTU for more than a decade, and no adverse material regarding their performance was placed on record.

Their initial engagement followed an advertisement for a walk-in selection process. At that time, no recruitment rules governing regular appointment to these posts had been promulgated. The advertisement had been published in a newspaper circulating in Delhi and the candidates underwent a selection process.

The employees had earlier approached the High Court seeking regularisation. Meanwhile, a 2015 GNCTD office order protected contractual employees against termination while the Government considered its policy regarding their status. The employees continued in service.

In separate proceedings, the High Court had also directed DTU to grant these contractual employees allowances such as HRA and TA equivalent to regularly appointed employees. That direction was implemented.

In 2018-19, DTU conducted regular recruitment and allowed the contractual employees to participate with age relaxation. Only one of them qualified and obtained regular appointment. The remaining employees continued contractually.

They thereafter filed W.P.(C) 10830/2020. The Single Judge allowed the petition and directed DTU to consider regularisation after conducting a structured review of sanctioned strength and existing vacancies and, where necessary, seek approval for creation or augmentation of posts.

Both sides appealed.

Issues

The principal issues before the Division Bench were:

Whether the employees’ initial contractual appointments were illegal appointments or merely irregular appointments.
Whether the Constitution Bench decision in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) barred their regularisation.
Whether more than 15 years of continuous service performing perennial and essential functions could create a substantive claim for regularisation.
Whether the absence of sanctioned posts defeated such a claim.
Whether the Single Judge was justified in directing DTU to review and augment its sanctioned strength.
Whether the employees were entitled to automatic regularisation from their initial dates of engagement, as opposed to consideration for regularisation.
Whether the Court could direct creation of supernumerary posts where no regular vacancy or sanctioned post existed.

Employees’ Arguments

The employees argued that once the Single Judge had accepted their entitlement to regularisation, the final relief should not have been made dependent upon DTU undertaking an exercise for creation or sanctioning of posts.

They contended that their appointments had followed an advertised selection process and that they had continuously served DTU for over 15 years.

Accordingly, they sought to be treated as regular employees from the dates of their initial engagement in 2010-11.

They relied upon decisions including Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, Jaggo v. Union of India, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Pawan Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam.

Their central submission was that prolonged, continuous and unblemished service in regular and recurring functions can transform what was initially temporary employment into a claim requiring fair regularisation.

They also argued that absence of a sanctioned post could not, by itself, defeat regularisation where the institution had continuously utilised their services to perform essential functions.

University’s Arguments

DTU challenged the Single Judge judgment in its entirety.

It argued that the employees had not been appointed through recruitment rules or regular recruitment procedures and that their original engagements were explicitly contractual.

According to DTU, their appointments were not merely irregular but illegal, and regularisation was therefore prohibited by Uma Devi.

The University also submitted that the creation of posts and determination of cadre strength belong exclusively to the executive domain. Courts, therefore, could not direct an employer to create or sanction posts.

DTU further argued that the employees had already received an opportunity to participate in the regular recruitment exercise in 2018-19 with age relaxation, but all except one either failed to obtain the qualifying marks or did not participate.

It also emphasised that the original advertisement was only published in newspapers circulating in Delhi and that no formal recruitment rules existed at the time.

Analysis of the Law

Uma Devi Does Not Absolutely Prohibit Regularisation

The Division Bench rejected DTU’s contention that Uma Devi created an absolute prohibition against regularisation of all contractual, casual, ad hoc or temporary employees.

The Court observed that Uma Devi itself distinguished between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments and contemplated regularisation in appropriate circumstances.

The core inquiry was therefore whether the DTU employees had entered service through a constitutionally impermissible backdoor process or whether procedural deficiencies merely rendered their appointments irregular.

Initial Appointments Were Irregular, Not Illegal

This became one of the most important findings.

The Court noted that:

no recruitment rules existed when the employees were engaged in 2010-11;
their appointments followed an advertisement published in a newspaper; and
they underwent some form of selection process.

Accordingly, their appointments could not be characterised as backdoor entries or wholly illegal appointments.

They were, at the highest, irregular appointments.

This distinction was critical because an illegal appointment may be constitutionally incapable of regularisation, while an irregular appointment may, depending upon later circumstances, justify consideration for regularisation.

Long Service and Perennial Nature of Work

The employees had continued to serve DTU for more than one-and-a-half decades.

The Division Bench considered this prolonged continuation significant because it indicated that the functions they performed were not temporary, seasonal or project-specific.

Rather, their continued engagement demonstrated that the work was perennial and institutionally necessary.

The Court therefore held that their long continuance established a legitimate basis for regularisation consideration.

Precedent Analysis

State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3)

DTU relied principally upon Uma Devi to argue that appointments made without compliance with formal recruitment rules could not be regularised.

The Division Bench rejected such a sweeping reading.

It reiterated that Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments which are illegal and those which are irregular, and its one-time regularisation principle expressly contemplated qualified employees who had continued for ten years or more in appropriate circumstances.

The Court therefore held that Uma Devi could not be invoked mechanically to defeat every claim by long-serving temporary employees.

Vinod Kumar v. Union of India

The Court placed substantial reliance upon Vinod Kumar.

That decision recognises that an employee’s rights cannot always be determined solely by the label or terms attached to the initial appointment where the actual course of employment has fundamentally changed over time.

Continuous service performing duties indistinguishable from those attached to permanent posts can represent a substantive departure from the original temporary nature of the engagement.

Vinod Kumar also reiterated the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments and recognised that appointments made through a selection process involving written examinations or interviews may not be illegal merely because every prescribed procedural formality was not followed.

The Division Bench applied this reasoning directly to the DTU employees.

Jaggo v. Union of India

The Court relied upon Jaggo for the proposition that Uma Devi was intended to prevent backdoor appointments, not to penalise employees who have rendered long years of continuous service performing ongoing and necessary governmental functions.

Jaggo recognised that where appointments are irregular rather than illegal, and employees have continuously performed regular work for a considerable period, fair and humane resolution through regularisation may become necessary.

The decision also cautioned against government institutions retaining employees indefinitely under temporary or contractual labels merely to avoid long-term employment obligations.

Pawan Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)

This precedent was particularly important because its facts closely resembled the DTU case.

In Pawan Sharma, the employees had also initially been engaged through a walk-in interview process.

The Division Bench in that case had formulated the following conditions supporting regularisation:

selection through a process broadly mirroring regular recruitment;
continuous service for several years;
performance of functions essential to the establishment; and
absence of an illegal, mala fide, surreptitious or backdoor appointment.

Pawan Sharma further held that a right to regularisation may arise even where the employees were not initially appointed against sanctioned posts.

The Supreme Court subsequently maintained the regularisation directions in Pawan Sharma, subject to clarification concerning seniority.

The Court therefore treated Pawan Sharma as strongly supporting the DTU employees.

Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam

The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee.

That judgment rejected the proposition that absence of duly sanctioned posts creates an absolute bar to regularisation.

It held that Uma Devi cannot be treated as a blanket barrier where temporary or ad hoc employees have performed essential and recurring governmental functions for prolonged periods.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the State, as a model employer, must act with fairness, consistency and reasonableness and cannot perpetually retain workers under artificial temporary labels while extracting regular work from them.

Court’s Reasoning

The Division Bench found DTU’s characterisation of the original appointments as illegal unsustainable.

The employees had not entered service surreptitiously or through favouritism. Their appointments followed an advertisement and selection process at a time when no formal recruitment rules existed.

Therefore, there was no constitutional backdoor entry.

Their continued deployment for more than 15 years further demonstrated that the duties were regular, essential and perennial rather than temporary.

The Court held that DTU could not continue taking the benefit of their labour for such an extended period while relying upon the initial contractual label to permanently deny regularisation.

The fact that only one employee had succeeded in the 2018-19 regular recruitment process did not erase the legal significance of the others’ long previous service or transform their original appointments into illegal ones.

The Court therefore upheld the employees’ substantive entitlement to consideration for regularisation.

Sanctioned Posts and Supernumerary Posts

The Division Bench, however, modified the mechanism devised by the Single Judge.

Instead of requiring DTU to undertake a general structured review of its sanctioned strength and seek creation or augmentation of posts, the Court issued a more specific direction.

Where a vacancy exists in the post against which an employee was originally engaged in 2010-11, DTU must consider that employee for regularisation against that vacancy.

Where:

no vacancy exists; or
the post itself is not sanctioned,

DTU must create a supernumerary post for the purpose of considering the employee’s regularisation.

Importantly, each such supernumerary post would remain in existence only until the superannuation of the employee regularised against it.

The entire exercise was directed to be completed within three months.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court modified the Single Judge’s judgment while substantially preserving the employees’ claim for regularisation.

It held that the DTU employees’ appointments were irregular rather than illegal, since they had been engaged after advertisement and selection at a time when no recruitment rules existed.

Their continuous service for more than 15 years demonstrated that they had been performing perennial and essential functions of the University.

Accordingly, DTU was directed to:

consider regularising each employee against the post on which he or she was initially engaged where a vacancy is available;
where no vacancy or sanctioned post exists, create a supernumerary post and consider the employee for regularisation against it;
discontinue each supernumerary post upon the concerned employee’s superannuation; and
complete the entire exercise within three months.

The Single Judge’s judgment dated 10 March 2026 was modified to that extent, and both appeals were disposed of without costs.

Key Ratio

Uma Devi does not impose an absolute bar on regularisation where appointments are irregular rather than illegal. Long-serving contractual employees selected through a genuine process and continuously performing essential, perennial functions may be entitled to regularisation consideration, even requiring creation of supernumerary posts where regular vacancies are unavailable.

Case Details

Case: Om Prakash Gaur & Ors. v. Delhi Technological University through its Vice Chancellor, with Delhi Technological University v. Mohd. Ansari & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Numbers: LPA 487/2026 and LPA 481/2026
CNR Nos.: DLHC010287222026 and DLHC010284752026
Judges: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia
Judgment by: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Reserved on: 9 July 2026
Date: 19 August 2026
Result: Single Judge judgment modified; DTU directed to consider regularisation against available vacancies and create supernumerary posts where vacancies or sanctioned posts are unavailable; exercise to be completed within three months.