Passed over for 31 slots: Court orders regularisation of History lecturer after 24-year battle
The Himachal Pradesh High Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Centre challenging the regularisation of Dr Ram Narayan Thakur at the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan.
The court noticed that the petitioner had already put in over 24 years of service and, on an average, 280 students studied History at the varsity in each academic session during 2013-2016. (AI-generated image) The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the regularisation of a History lecturer who served for more than 24 years on a modest salary, expressing concern that the subject continued to be taught through a non-regular post despite consistent student enrolment of around 280 students every academic year between 2013 and 2016.
Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C Negi held that the Centre could not rely on the absence of a sanctioned post to deny regularisation when its own inaction had contributed to the situation.
“The work noticed has been continuous, and it is disheartening to notice that the subject of History was being taught through not a regular sanctioned post, in spite of regular admissions of about 280 students during each academic session from the year 2013 to 2016,” the order read.
Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C Negi stated that if necessary, the Centre could have created a supernumerary post.
The high court was hearing an appeal filed by the Centre challenging a September 17, 2025, judgment passed by a single judge that directed the regularisation of Dr Ram Narayan Thakur, a History lecturer who is now redesignated as an assistant professor in Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan.
‘Centre’s inaction’
- The high court noted that during the pendency of the writ petition, 31 posts of assistant professors were created in 2011 when the lecturer had already completed around 20 years of service.
- However, it was found that nothing was done to adjust him against the said post, and now the argument sought to be raised is that there was no regular sanctioned post.
- Referring to a Supreme Court precedent, the high court reiterated that sanctioned posts do not “fall from heaven” and must be created by the state after assessing institutional requirements.
- It added that if necessary, the Centre could have created a supernumerary post to comply with the directions issued by the single judge.
Served for over 2 decades
- The court noted that the employee was a PhD holder since 1991 and also a possessor of the degree of doctorate in the subject of History, and he had been employed to serve the authorities at a “meagre and paltry” sum of Rs 39,000 per month.
- It also noticed that the petitioner had already put in more than 24 years of service and, on an average, 280 students studied History in each academic session during 2013-2016.
- It was also found that the argument that there was no vacant sanctioned post to teach the subject of History in the “Sansthan” was falsified through the documents placed on record by the employee.
- The document pointed out that 17 faculty and 13 non-faculty posts were created with the approval of the competent authority in the year 2000, defeating the arguments of that institution.
Arguments
Central government counsel Rajinder Thakur argued that the said findings are incorrect since the creation of the posts on November 7, 2000, was only on a part-time basis, wherein it was mentioned that one of the posts of part-time lecturer of History was created.
Accordingly, he has again stressed that there was no regular sanctioned post to strengthen his case.
Advocate Rajesh Kumar represented the History teacher in the case.
Share
