AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sashikanta Mishra, J
The Petitioner having M.Sc. and M. Phil degree in Chemistry applied to the Indian Institute of Technology (I.I.T), Bhubaneswar for the post of Junior Technician on contract basis. After verification of his testimonials and selection process conducted by a selection committee, the Petitioner’s candidature was accepted and he was favoured with a letter of assignment for the post carrying remuneration of Rs.12,000/- per month. Such engagement was for a period of one year w.e.f. 8th July, 2009. The Petitioner joined in the post on 13th July, 2009. The contract was renewed from time to time till 2015 when the last such renewal of contract expired. It is claimed that similarly situated persons as the Petitioner were continued to be engaged by renewing their contracts. The Petitioner submitted his representation to the Director on 3rd November, 2015 ventilating his grievance with prayer for renewal of his contract period. Since no action was taken on such representation he moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.564/2016. By order dated 21st January, 2016, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Director to take a decision on the representation filed by the Petitioner and to pass appropriate orders within three months. By letter dated 30th June, 2016 of the Registrar, I.I.T, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.2) the Petitioner’s representation was rejected simply by reaffirming the earlier decision of non-renewal of contract from the date of its expiry i.e. 30th September, 2015.
Being aggrieved by such rejection of his representation, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with prayer to quash the same and to direct the Opposite Party-authority to renew his services as against the post of Junior Technician.
The stand of the I.I.T as reflected in its counter affidavit is that the Petitioner was engaged on contract basis under certain terms and conditions for a particular period. The contract was renewed from time to time till 30th September, 2015 on which date the last contract period expired. It is the further case of I.I.T that the contractual engagement was a stop-gap arrangement till regular appointment is undertaken through process of selection. Since the renewal of the contract depends on requirement it was not obligatory for the authority to cite reasons for non-extension of contract. The averment that similarly placed contractual employees have been allowed to continue is specifically denied by stating that regular employees have been appointed pursuant to an open advertisement followed by a selection process. It was open to the Petitioner to appear in the selection process.
Heard Mr. B. Rourtay, learned Senior counsel, with Mr. S.Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties (IIT).
Mr. Routray, learned Senior counsel, would argue that the Petitioner has rendered service from 2009 till 2015 i.e. for six years without any blemish or complaint from any quarter whatsoever. It is also not the case of the authorities that the Petitioner’s performance was not satisfactory. Mr. Routray has in particular, referred to an advertisement issued by IIT on 16th December, 2020 for different non-teaching posts which includes contractual positions such as Junior Technician, Junior Laboratory Assistant and Junior Assistant. Twelve such vacancies were advertised. On such basis, Mr. Routray would forcefully argue that the advertisement reflects two things- firstly, that vacancies do exist and secondly, the post against which the Petitioner was contractually engaged for all these years is sought to be filled up again by another set of contractual employees, which is not permissible in the eye of law as per the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others; (1992)4 Supreme Court Cases 118. It is also argued by Mr. Routray that the Petitioner has become over-aged by efflux of time and therefore, he cannot simply be thrown out of employment.
Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned counsel for the I.I.T, on the other hand, would submit that the Petitioner having been engaged on contract for a particular period has no right of continuance against such post, which is subject to renewal from time to time. So, only because the contract was renewed from 2009 to 2015 does not confer a right on the Petitioner of being appointed even after expiry of his contract. Shri Dash further argues that the engagement of the petitioner was entirely need based and since the institute had no further requirement, it decided not to renew the contract after the expiry of the stipulated period. As regards the advertisement dtd.16th December, 2020, Mr. Dash has informed the Court that the said advertisement has since been cancelled in obedience to the direction issued by the Government of India in Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education.
The facts of the case as averred in the Writ Petition are undisputed inasmuch as the Petitioner was engaged under a contract effective from 13th July, 2009 for a period of one year. Such contract appears to have been extended from time to time till 30th September, 2015. It has been averred that several other persons, who were similarly engaged on contractual basis have been allowed to continue, but such fact has been specifically denied by the opposite Parties. It goes without saying that a contractual employee has no vested right over such contractual appointment. In the case of Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. vs. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt); (1992) 4 SCC 33, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that where the appointment is contractual and the appointment comes to an end by efflux of time, the appointee has no right to continue in the post and the fact that even after expiry of the original period the services are continued on Adhoc basis from time to time would not confer any such right. Such being the position of law, a contractual employee cannot, as a matter of right, ask the employer to renew his contract. But then, this Court is also conscious of the ratio laid down in the case of Piara Singh (supra); wherein it was held that one set of contractual employees cannot be substituted by another set of contractual employees. It is in this context that the advertisement dated 16th December, 2020 brought on record by way of an additional affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.2 assumes relevance. As many as 12 contractual posts with a tenure of two years had been advertised including the post of Junior Technician. So while on one hand, it has been contended that there was no requirement for the contractual engagement of Junior Technician at the same time, attempt is made to engage fresh contractual appointees for a fixed tenure. This militates against the dictum of Piara Singh (supra) and also offends the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Coming to the impugned order of rejection of the Petitioner’s representation (Annexure-9), it has been simply stated that the institute reaffirmed its decision of non-renewal of contract. Nothing has been said as to why such decision was taken in the first place. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that since the contractual service of the petitioner had already expired, the institute was not obliged to submit reasons for rejection of the representation. In the counter affidavit filed by the Institute, it is stated under paragraph-15 that the decision of the Institute for non-renewal of the contract was based on the requirement. This is not an acceptable proposition because firstly, in the absence of such fact being specifically mentioned in the impugned order, it is not open to the Opposite Parties to improve upon its own case by supplying additional reasons in the counter and secondly, this Court has already negatived the stand taken by the Opposite Parties that there was no requirement of work in view of the publication of the advertisement dated 16th December, 2020. The fact that the advertisement was subsequently cancelled, for whatever reason, does drive home the point that there is requirement of work for contractual employees. True, the Petitioner being a contractual appointee cannot claim as a matter of right for the contract to be continued indefinitely. But then, after having been so engaged for a long period of time i.e. 6 years, he is legitimately entitled to be informed of the reasons for non-renewal of his contract abruptly. It is not the case of the Opposite Parties that his performance was not satisfactory. The only reason cited by the Opposite Parties that there was no requirement of work does not hold good in view of what has been discussed earlier. The I.I.T being an instrumentality of the State is not absolved of the salutary requirement of adhering to the principles of reasonableness and rationality in its actions. In the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and others vs State Of U.P. And Ors ; (1991) 1 SCC 212 the Apex Court observed as follows;
“There is an obvious difference in the contracts between private parties and contracts to which the State is a party. Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest. This factor alone is sufficient to import at least the minimal requirements of public law obligations and impress with this character the contracts made by the State or its instrumentality. It is a different matter that the scope of judicial review in respect of disputes failing within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to adjudication of their rights by resort to remedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes. However, to the extent, challenge is made on the ground of violation of Article 14 by alleging that the impugned act is arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, the fact that the dispute also fails within the domain of contractual obligations would not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the basic requirements of Article 14. To this extent, the obligation is of a public character invariably in every case irrespective of there being any other right or obligation in addition thereto. An additional contractual obligation cannot divest the claimant of the guarantee under Article 14 of non-arbitrariness at the hands of the State in any of its actions.
Thus, in a case like the present, if it is shown that the impugned State action is arbitrary and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, there can be no impediment in striking down the impugned act irrespective of the question whether an additional right, contractual or statutory, if any, is also available to the aggrieved persons.”
The following words of the Apex Court in the case of Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons Vs .Board of Trustees of the port of Bombay; (1989) 3 SCC 293 are also highly relevant in the present context;
“xxx xxx xxx xxx
Where there is arbitrariness in State action, Article 14 springs and judicial review strikes such an action down. Every action of the Executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reason. So whatever be the activity of the public authority, it should be meet the test of Article 14.
xxx xxx xxx xxx.”
From what has been discussed earlier the impugned can hardly be treated as meeting the requirement of Article 14. On the contrary, the same reflects arbitrariness and unreasonableness in full measure prompting this Court to interfere.
Thus, from a conspectus of the discussion made hereinbefore, this Court is left with no doubt that the impugned order under Annexure-9 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order under Annexure-9 is hereby quashed. Since this Court in W.P.(C) No.546/2016 had once remitted the matter to the authority to consider the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law, this Court finds no justification for granting yet another opportunity to the authority to do the same thing.
Thus, in order to bring a quietus to the issue and keeping in mind the fact that there is requirement of work in the Institute for a Junior Technician, the Opposite Parties are directed to consider the renewal/execution of a fresh contract with the Petitioner till the post is filled up through a regular selection process. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a month under intimation to the Petitioner.
……………………………