1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has partly allowed a writ petition filed by long-serving Contract/Guest Lecturers of the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), directing the respondent to grant a further one-year window for the petitioners to acquire the NET/Ph.D. qualifications required for transition to the post of Assistant Professor. While refusing to interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal’s finding that no vested right to regularisation exists, the Court held that extraordinary circumstances—including the COVID-19 pandemic, successive amendments to eligibility norms, long years of service, and the petitioners having now crossed the upper age limit—warranted relaxation under Clause 5 of the 2019 Regulations. Those who have already acquired qualifications must be considered without discrimination.
2. Facts
The petitioners were engaged as Contract/Guest Lecturers by SCERT between 2008 and 2017. Recruitment Rules at that time required a Master’s degree with B.Ed./M.Ed. In 2018, the Government of NCT of Delhi announced restructuring of Teacher Education institutions. Clause 13 of the notification granted three years for existing faculty to upgrade qualifications to meet enhanced requirements.
In 2019, SCERT notified new Academic Posts Regulations introducing NET/Ph.D. as mandatory for Assistant Professor. Amendments in 2020 and 2022 repeatedly modified subject requirements. The petitioners claimed they were preparing for NET when the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted examinations. In November 2021, SCERT issued an eligibility list marking them “Not Eligible” and transitioned only those who met the qualifications. Their contractual tenure ended without renewal in March 2022.
Their OA before CAT seeking regularisation, relaxation, extension, and consideration for Assistant Professor was dismissed. The present writ challenged that dismissal.
3. Issues
- Whether long-serving contractual lecturers lacking NET/Ph.D. could seek extension of time to upgrade qualifications.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in declining relaxation despite Clause 5 permitting it.
- Whether repeated amendments to eligibility norms during the relaxation period constituted a “change in rules midstream.”
- Whether pandemic-induced disruptions justified equitable relief.
- Whether petitioners could claim legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel based on long service and restructuring guidelines.
- Whether termination of contractual engagement violated Articles 14 and 16.
4. Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners argued that they were appointed through a proper selection process, worked continuously without adverse remarks, and performed duties identical to Assistant Professors. They relied on Clause 13 of the 2018 restructuring guidelines granting a three-year relaxation, arguing that SCERT wrongly computed the period from 2018 instead of 2020, when NET subject requirements were first formally introduced. They submitted that qualifications changed thrice—2019, 2020, 2022—thereby violating the “rules of the game cannot be changed midstream” principle from Tej Prakash Pathak (2024 INSC 847).
They emphasised that COVID-19 severely restricted the opportunity to appear for NET, which was held rarely between 2020–22. Many of them are now over-age for direct recruitment, despite dedicating their careers to SCERT. They invoked legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, citing Namita Khare (2025 SCC OnLine Del 4891) and Shilpi Gupta (2025 SCC OnLine Del 4478), arguing that SCERT benefited from their experience but discontinued them unfairly. They sought extension, relaxation, and consideration for transition.
5. Respondent’s arguments
SCERT argued that petitioners were purely contractual, engaged on a need basis without any right to continuation or regularisation. It asserted that ample opportunities existed to obtain NET, including exam cycles in 2019 (twice), 2020, and 2021. Many lecturers successfully upgraded qualifications; petitioners cannot attribute their inaction to the pandemic.
SCERT emphasised that posts of Lecturer stood abolished after restructuring, replaced with Assistant Professors requiring higher qualifications under UGC norms. It relied on decisions including Umadevi (2006), Dayanand (2008), Ilmo Devi (2021), and Daya Lal (2011) to argue that contractual employees possess no right to regularisation.
SCERT stated that a three-month extension beyond the three-year relaxation was already granted and that further extension would compromise academic standards. It rejected arguments on legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, asserting that policy decisions driven by academic excellence cannot be diluted.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court recognised that the case did not concern routine contractual employment but teaching positions, where qualification standards serve a compelling academic purpose. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that no automatic right to regularisation exists. However, it diverged from the Tribunal on the question of relaxation and extension.
(a) Importance of qualifications in teaching
Courts must safeguard academic standards; however, Regulations themselves (Clause 5) contemplate relaxation in deserving cases. This distinguishes the matter from Umadevi line of cases, which apply principally to non-academic and non-technical posts.
(b) COVID-19 as an extraordinary impediment
NET exams were disrupted; academic functioning was inconsistent; and not all faculty were equally situated. The inability to qualify was not entirely attributable to the petitioners. The Court held this constituted a legally relevant supervening circumstance.
(c) Shifting qualifications and fairness
NET eligibility in “any school subject” was introduced for the first time in 2019. The petitioners’ three-year relaxation should have run from that date—not 2018. Successive amendments changed the eligibility landscape. This lent credibility to the petitioners’ claim that they were disadvantaged by timing.
(d) Age-bar concern
Many petitioners had crossed 45 years, rendering direct recruitment impossible. Their predicament was not self-created but a consequence of policy timing and pandemic disruption. Equity demanded intervention.
(e) Clause 5: Power to relax
SCERT holds explicit authority to relax qualifications. Courts can direct consideration of such relaxation when non-exercise would be arbitrary in light of exceptional circumstances.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court distinguished the Umadevi and Daya Lal line by emphasising that teaching posts require advanced qualifications, and relaxation is expressly permitted under Clause 5, which Umadevi did not prohibit.
It acknowledged petitioners’ reliance on Tej Prakash Pathak regarding midstream rule changes but found that although qualifications evolved, the core issue was whether relaxation could be granted—not the validity of amendments.
The Court recognised that Namita Khare and Shilpi Gupta articulate the doctrines of legitimate expectation and fairness but clarified they cannot override essential qualifications. Nonetheless, these doctrines supported equitable extension in the present context.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court held that while merit-based qualifications cannot be diluted, fairness required granting additional time. It highlighted:
• Petitioners served SCERT for over a decade, evidencing competence and institutional reliance.
• COVID-19 significantly impaired their ability to meet revised qualifications.
• Amendments during the relaxation window altered eligibility in ways not foreseeable.
• SCERT misapplied the relaxation period by counting from 2018 instead of 2019, when NET qualifications became applicable.
• Clause 5 empowered relaxation; exceptional circumstances warranted its use.
The Court consequently directed a one-year extension for acquiring qualifications and required SCERT to consider those who have already qualified on par with the 2021 transitioned cohort. Relief was expressly limited to the petitioners and similarly situated litigants.
9. Conclusion
The writ was partly allowed. SCERT must:
- Provide petitioners one additional year to acquire NET/Ph.D. eligibility.
- Consider already-qualified petitioners for transition to Assistant Professor without discrimination.
- Undertake compliance steps within eight weeks.
No broader rights to regularisation were recognised. Costs were not imposed.
10. Implications
This judgment is significant for education-sector service law:
• It affirms that academic standards remain paramount, yet flexibility exists through regulated relaxation mechanisms.
• It recognises COVID-19 as a legitimate ground for equitable intervention in qualification-based employment processes.
• It emphasises the obligation of institutions to apply relaxation periods correctly and fairly.
• It offers relief to long-serving contractual faculty caught between restructuring and shifting eligibility norms.
• It signals that courts may intervene where rigid enforcement of qualifications, amid extraordinary conditions, produces manifest injustice.
The ruling may influence future disputes involving restructuring of academic institutions, qualification upgrades, and claims of legitimate expectation.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
1. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006)
Regularisation cannot be claimed as a right; contractual employees gain no vested entitlement.
2. Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2024 INSC 847)
Rules of the game cannot be changed midstream; invoked by petitioners to challenge shifting criteria.
3. Namita Khare v. University of Delhi (2025 SCC OnLine Del 4891)
Legitimate expectation and fairness in academic employment; supported petitioners’ plea for equitable relief.
4. Resmi R.S. v. Government of India (2019 SCC OnLine Ker 2649)
Contractual employees have no right to automatic continuation; relied on by SCERT.
FAQs
1. Did the Delhi High Court order regularisation of SCERT guest lecturers?
No. The Court refused regularisation but granted a one-year extension to obtain NET/Ph.D. and directed fair consideration for those already qualified.
2. Why did the Court grant extra time to obtain qualifications?
Because pandemic disruptions, shifting eligibility criteria, and age-bar consequences created exceptional circumstances warranting relaxation under Clause 5.
3. Are all contractual lecturers entitled to this benefit?
No. The judgment limits relief only to the petitioners and similarly situated litigants already contesting the issue.
