The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were appointed on temporary posts under a specific scheme. The court found no basis to interfere with the lower court's conclusion that these employees were not regular staff of the University.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.353 of 2012
Decided on: 10.05.2013
Hemant Kumar. ....Appellant. Versus H.P. University & Another. …Respondents.
____________________________________________________________ Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Ms.Ranjana Parmar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Ms.Sunita Sharma, Advocate.
Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, CJ. (oral)
Heard counsel for the parties.
Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment?
2
as regular staff of the University, notwithstanding the fact that the appointment of the appellant, as in the case of other three persons, referred to above, was on the Centre of Adult Continuing Education and Extension H.P. University Scheme with clear understanding that it was purely temporary under plan post and services could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. Further, the terms and conditions of the services were to be as per the Rules and Regulations formulated for the said Scheme.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a temporary appointment under a UGC-funded scheme can be treated as regular university staff to claim regularisation benefits.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition for regularisation.
Hemant Kumar
H.P. University
A.M. Khanwilkar
Kuldip Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
