VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Uttarakhand High Court 2026 › High Court of Uttarakhand

Yogambar Singh Negi v. Union of India

DISPOSED
Court
High Court of Uttarakhand
Decided
12 June 2026
Bench
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
Case no.
WPSB 193/2021

Follow Uttarakhand High CourtFollow Manoj Kumar TiwariFollow Pankaj Purohit

Judgment

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

WPSB/193/2021 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

¶1Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel petitioner.

¶2Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union of India.

¶3Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General State of Uttarakhand.

¶4Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-University.

¶5Petitioner was appointed as part-time Teacher in H.N.B. Garhwal University in the year 1991, while it was a State University. According to petitioner, he is serving in that capacity continuously ever since then; however, his claim for regularisation has not been considered.

¶6Petitioner earlier filed writ petition in which a direction was issued to the Competent Authority to examine petitioner's claim for regularisation in terms of Section 31(3)(c) of The U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.

¶7In terms of that direction, Executive Council of H.N.B. Garhwal Central University examined the case of the petitioner in the light of opinion given by

Law Officer of Union of India. Executive Council, after considering the matter at length, passed a resolution on

16.06.2011 holding that provisions of The U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 will not be applicable after its conversion to a Central University, and appointment in the Central University has to be made as per provisions contained in Statute 18(6)(iii) of the First Statute of the Central Universities Act, 2009.

¶8Petitioner has challenged the said resolution by contending that Executive Council of State University, by a resolution dated

30.07.2003, had resolved to regularise service of the petitioner and other similarly situate persons, and thereafter, similar resolution was again passed on

07.07.2006, therefore, Executive Council of the Central University could not have overlooked the earlier decisions taken by Executive Council of the State University. It is further contended that a right had accrued in favour of petitioner regularisation of his services, which cannot be defeated merely by converting the status of the University from State University to Central University.

¶9Per contra, learned counsel for the University submits that there is nothing on record to substantiate the contention made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that Executive Council of the State University resolved to regularise the service of the petitioner. He submits that as per resolution, referred to by counsel petitioner, it was provided that claim of the petitioner, along with other guest teachers, may be considered for regularisation as and when vacancies are available. He further

submits that upon conversion of the University to a Central University, provisions of The U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 are not applicable and the affairs of the University are to be governed only by provisions of Central Universities Act, 2009. Thus, he supports impugned decision taken by Executive Council.

¶10We do not find scope interference with the impugned decision. The Executive Council correctly held that upon conversion from State University to Central University, State Universities Act will not be applicable. Thus, there is no scope for interference. However, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to petitioner to make fresh representation, claiming regularisation. If petitioner makes such representation within two weeks from today, Competent Authority in University shall sympathetically consider his claim for regularisation in view of his long uninterrupted services, within eight weeks from the date of presentation of such representation along with certified copy of this order.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

12.06.2026

Aswal

NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3ati 8b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DAC F4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.06.14 22:34:33 -07'00'

Source: High Court of Uttarakhand, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.