The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed Panjab University’s appeals against regularisation of long-serving temporary teachers, but modified the relief by making the process subject to 10 years of actual service, satisfactory work and conduct.The direction by the Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Minderjeet Yadav came nearly 10 months after a Single Judge of the high court ordered regularisation of Assistant Professors, Senior Assistant Professors and Associate Professors. Some were working in constituent colleges of the Panjab University, while others were working with the varsity itself.The Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Minderjeet Yadav ruled that the earlier directions to treat the respondents as regular employees stood modified. The varsity would consider the claims of respondents, who had completed a minimum of 10 years of actual service, subject to there being nothing against their work and conduct.The Bench further directed that a respondent-employee who had not completed 10 years by the date of the order, but completed the period before the varsity passed orders regarding the other respondents would not be treated as ineligible. Those completing 10 years subsequently would get the benefit as and when they completed the required period. The Bench observed that the respondents had conceded they would claim regularisation prospectively.The Court noted that the teachers had initially been appointed on a temporary basis for particular academic sessions after appearing for interviews and being selected by university-constituted Selection Committees. Their appointments were to continue for the appointed period or until regular selection, whichever was earlier.Despite the temporary label, their services continued for more than a decade. The Court recorded that the posts were sanctioned and the teachers were receiving regular pay scales and all related benefits admissible to regular appointees, except regularisation and permanent status. The Bench was assisted in the matter on behalf of respondent employees by Senior advocate D S Patwalia, along with counsel Sameer Sachdeva,  Sarthak Gupta, Gaurav Rana and Nikhil Kaushik.The varsity argued that the Selection Committees constituted when the teachers were recruited were not in accordance with the UGC recommendations and that the posts should be advertised for regular selection, allowing all eligible candidates to compete.The Bench rejected the contention in the facts of the cases by observing: “The long tenure itself shows that not only the service of the respondents was needed, but even the conduct of the teachers demonstrated that they were effectively discharging the duties attached to the said posts.”The Bench added the argument before the Court by the counsel for the appellants that “temporary appointment, stopgap arrangement had been directed to be regularised, cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case”.It also held that asking the teachers to compete with younger candidates after approximately one-and-a-half decades for the same posts would not provide an equal footing. “Competing with younger generation cannot be allowed to be treated as a level playing field,” the Bench said.The Court found that all respondents fulfilled the requisite educational qualifications, the appointments were against sanctioned posts and regular pay scales had been given. Thus, the issue was essentially their status as regular rather than temporary employees.”Apart from the formal designation of being recognised as regular employees, the respondents had already been receiving all associated benefits since their initial appointments. Consequently, the learned Single Judge only changed their status from temporary to permanent, without conferring any additional benefits through the regularisation of their services,” the Bench observed.The Court added nothing had come on record that the respondents were lagging behind in any manner. Not even a single blot had been brought to the Court’s notice. “But still, when the directions are being given, the appellants will be within their jurisdiction to look into the record of each teacher before complying with the present order and in case there is any grave misconduct on part of any teacher, any appropriate action may be taken by the appellants including non-grant of the benefit of regularization after giving due reasons for such decision,” the Bench added.