Kerala High Court
G.Ramesh Babu vs Union Of India on 1 July, 2025
O.P.(CAT).152/2018 -:1:-
2025:KER:47732
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 152 OF 2018
[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.07.2018 IN OA
NO.180/00745/2017 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH.]
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
G.RAMESH BABU, S/O. D.V.GOVINDARAJULU,
AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 23, SUBADARSAN GARDENS,
VEERIAMPALAYAM ROAD, KALAPATTY, COIMBATORE-641048,
JOINT DIRECTOR (TILL 6-8-2018), NATIONAL INSTITUTE
OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY, MANGATTUPARAMBA, DHARMASALA,
KANNUR-670562.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
SRI.MANI GOVINDA MARAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES,
UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110107.
2 TEXTILE COMMITTEE, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, P.BALU ROAD, PRABHADEVI CHOWK,
MUMBAI - 400025, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY,
NIFT CAMPUS, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110016.
O.P.(CAT).152/2018 -:2:-
2025:KER:47732
4 THE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY,
MANGATTUPARAMBA, DHARMASALA, KANNUR - 670562.
5 THE REGISTRAR
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY,
NIFT CAMPUS, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110016.
BY ADVS. SMT. O.M.SHALINA,
DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA,
SRI. T.V.VINU, CGC
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.07.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(CAT).152/2018 -:3:-
2025:KER:47732
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2025.
Nitin Jamdar, C.J.
By way of this Original Petition, the Petitioner/Original Applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 31 July 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in O.A. No.180/00745/2017, and the consequential orders relieving the Petitioner from service on 3 August 2018 and terminating him with effect from 6 August 2018.
2. The Petitioner was appointed as the Joint Director in the National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), Kannur, on 6 December 2013, on contract basis for a period of three years. His contract was subsequently extended till 5 September 2017. Thereafter, his contract was not extended. The Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, by filing O.A. No.180/01137/2014, challenging the non consideration of his application for extension. During the pendency of the original application, the Petitioner was terminated from service. Challenging the order of termination, the Petitioner filed O.A. No.180/00745/2017.
3. The Tribunal initially stayed the termination order and directed the Respondents to retain the Petitioner in service until further orders. Thereafter, both the applications were heard together and dismissed by a common order dated 31 July 2018. O.A. No.180/01137/2014 was O.P.(CAT).152/2018 -:4:- 2025:KER:47732 dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner did not possess the required qualification and that there was no error in the action of the Respondent. After the dismissal of O.A. No.180/00745/2017, the Petitioner was relieved from service with effect from 3 August 2018. Thereafter, a letter dated 6 August 2018 was issued by the Registrar, NIFT, terminating the services of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Tribunal, the Petitioner has filed this Original Petition.
4. The Director of NIFT, Kannur, has filed a counter affidavit dated 19 January 2019 on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5.
5. We have heard Mr. K. Jayakumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, and Mr. T.V. Vinu, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondents.
6. The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner relied upon the notification issued by the NIFT dated 11 April 2012 under the National Institute of Fashion Technology Act, 2006, laying down the terms and conditions of employees on long-term contracts. The notification states that the appointing authority may appoint any person on long-term contract on terms and conditions as specified by the Board for a period not exceeding three years and that the appointing authority may renew the contract for a further period subject to satisfactory performance and the requirements of the institute. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that despite the fact that the contractual period was extended for a short duration twice and O.P.(CAT).152/2018 -:5:- 2025:KER:47732 there were favourable remarks in the service records of the Petitioner, only because the Petitioner filed an original application, unsatisfactory remarks regarding his service were subsequently entered and it was recommended that the Petitioner was not entitled to a further extension. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that it was out of malice that the contract was not renewed and the impugned order came to be passed. It was submitted that the Respondent - State instrumentality ought to have acted fairly, and that judicial review in matters of contractual appointments is permissible if the action is mala fide, arbitrary, or irrational. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GRIDCO Limited and Another v. Sri. Sadananda Doloi and Others1. The learned Senior Advocate was also submitted that every entry in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) has to be communicated within a reasonable period and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and Others2. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Sanjay Jethi and Another3, it was submitted that the ground of bias can be considered in the fact situation of the present case. The learned Central Government Counsel supported the impugned order contending that the Petitioner has no right to seek extension of the contract which had expired several years ago, and that the Petitioner is almost sixty years old, and therefore, no relief can be granted in the present petition.
1 (2011) 15 SCC 16 2 (2013) 9 SCC 566 3 (2013) 16 SCC 116 O.P.(CAT).152/2018 -:6:- 2025:KER:47732
7. Clause 21 of the National Institute of Fashion Technology Notification dated 11 April 2012 states that a person can be appointed on a long-term contract for a period not exceeding three years. The renewal is subject to satisfactory performance and requirement, and the services of a contractor can be terminated at any time by one month's notice. Therefore, there is clearly no vested legal right to seek further contractual appointments irrespective of the circumstances.
8. The burden to prove malice as a ground of challenge is on the Petitioner. The allegations of mala fides raised in the petition are bald and bereft of any particulars. The Petitioner has not joined the officer who, according to the Petitioner, out of personal malice had not recommended the extension of further contractual appointment. To substantiate malice, the Petitioner has relied upon the communication dated 4 March 2015 in respect of the original application filed by the Petitioner. However, this communication is an official communication which states that the authorities were needlessly joined in the original application and for defending such a proceeding expenses had to be incurred, and why the same should not be recovered from the Petitioner. No malice can be directly inferred from this communication. Further, the entry in the Petitioner's service record states that the performance of the Petitioner was rated as "average" for the first term, and for the second term, it was "good". Thereupon, the proposal for extension of the contract was not recommended. If the entries in the service record were against the O.P.(CAT).152/2018 -:7:- 2025:KER:47732 Petitioner, the decision not to extend the contract cannot be termed mala fide. The Respondents, in their reply statement, have pointed out that as against the adverse entry, the Petitioner had made a representation and the representation was rejected. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention that the denial of further contract was out of malice.
9. The present case thus pertains to a contractual employee who, after receiving two extensions, was not granted any further extension of the contract. An entry adverse to the Petitioner existed in the record based on which the further extension of the contract was not recommended. The Petitioner accepted that he was engaged under a three-year contract and had also agreed to the two extensions. There is no statutory obligation on the part of the Respondents or mandate to continue or grant further extension of the contract to the Petitioner. Such insistence on the continuation or extension of the contract till the age of superannuation would be akin to backdoor entry, which cannot be permitted. Therefore, there is no perversity in the view taken by the Tribunal that the Petitioner had no vested right to seek extension of the contract. In the circumstances, the Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the original applications.
10. As per the Petitioner's own showing, the contract ended in the year 2017, whereas this petition was filed in the year 2018, and there is no interim relief. It has now been almost eight years since the contract expired. The Petitioner is presently around 60 years of age.
O.P.(CAT).152/2018 -:8:-2025:KER:47732
11. No case is made out for setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 31 July 2018 and to issue a writ directing the Respondents to grant a further extension of the contract to the Petitioner.
12. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
Nitin Jamdar, Chief Justice Sd/-
Basant Balaji, Judge krj/-
//true copy// P.A. To C.J.
O.P.(CAT).152/2018 -:9:-2025:KER:47732 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 152/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION AS O.A.NO.180/00745/2017 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, DATED 11.09.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A. NO. 180/00745/2017 DATED 29.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN O.A. NO. 745/2017 DATED 31/03/2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 13/09/2017 IN O.A. NO. 180/00745/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 31.07.2018
IN O.A.NO. 180/01137/2014 & O.A. NO.
180/00745/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF RELIEVING LETTER OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT HAVING NO. F.NO.12192(28)/
NIFT/KAN/ESTT./RB/2013 DATED 03.08.2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION LETTER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT HAVING NI. 1219(5)/NIFT/HO/E.II/LONG TERM EXTENSION OF STAFF/2018/53 DATED 06.08.2018.
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT NO.18/2013-ESTT.
DATED 27.06.2013.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT WITH NUMBER NIFT/HO/E-II/
RECTT./GD/2013 DATED 17.09.2013.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE
PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
19.09.2013.
O.P.(CAT).152/2018 -:10:-
2025:KER:47732
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT NO.
121/385/2012/AD/VOL.V DATED 20.09.2013.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT NO. 12192/28/NIFT/KAN/ESTT./RB/2013 DATED 04-03-2015.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPIES OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE DIRECTOR, NIFT NO.F.NO.12197/NIFT/KAN/ESTT./HO CORRESPONDENCE/2013 VOL. II DATED 06-09-2016 AND THE LIST OF FACULTY MEMBERS ACCOMPANYING THE SAID LETTER, DATED 06-09-2016.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR SENDING THE SEALED COVER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 10-03-2016.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 03-10-2016.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. NIFT/HO/ESTT/ APARS/QUERIES/2015 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 03-10-2016.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE SPEED POST RECEIPT DATED 10-10- 2016 AND THE POSTAL COVER IN WHICH EXT. A11 WAS SENT TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13-10-2016.
ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. NIFT/HO/E/II/LONG TERM EXTENSION CONTRACT/2016 DATED 05-10-
2016/14-10-2016 OF THE ASST. DIRECTOR,
ESTABLISHMENT, NIFT.
ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
NIFT/KNR/DIR/12552/1/JD OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 31-10-2016.
ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 31-10- 2016.
O.P.(CAT).152/2018 -:11:-
2025:KER:47732
ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT NO. NIFT/HO/E/II/ LONG TERM
EXTENSION/2016 PART II DATED 26-04-2017.
ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF FACULTY/ STAFF WHOSE CONTRACT ARE GOING TO EXPIRE DURING JULY-
SEPTEMBER 2017, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPIES OF THE PARTICULARS FOR VIGILANCE CLEARANCE OF THE PETITIONER AND OF THE OTHER PERSONS MENTIONED IN EXT. A18, SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. NIFT/HO/E II/LONG TERM EXTENSION/2016 PART II OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT, NIFT DATED 25-07-2017.
ANNEXURE A19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. NIFT/HO/E II LONG TERM EXTENSION/2016 PART II OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 26-04-2017.
ANNEXURE A20 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F. NO 12192 (28/NIFT/KAN/ESTT./RB/2013 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08-09-2017.
ANNEXURE A21 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTING OFFICER'S LETTER IN APPRECIATION OF THE APPLICANT, DATED 02-03-2015.
ANNEXURE A22 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTING OFFICER'S LETTER IN APPRECIATION OF THE APPLICANT, DATED 09-03-2016.
ANNEXURE R1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.M DATED 22-06-2015 ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE DIRECTOR, NIFT, KANNUR.
ANNEXURE R2 TRUE COPY OF THE O.M DATED 03-10-2016 ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN REPLY TO THE REPRESENTATION RECEIVED FROM THE APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE R3 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT CONCERNING THE CONTRACT ENGAGEMENT IN THE POST OF JOINT DIRECTOR, NIFT, KANNUR.
O.P.(CAT).152/2018 -:12:-2025:KER:47732 ANNEXURE R4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THIS RESPONDENT IN O.A.NO. 1137/2014.
ANNEXURE R5 TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 28 OF THE NIFT ACT.
EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL OF THE PETITIONER, TO THE REGISTRAR, NIFT, KANNUR, DATED 27.12.2013.
EXHIBIT-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.3/19/2009- ESTT.(PAY II) DATED 05.04.2010 OF THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.3/13/2008-ESTT.
(PAY II) OF THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DATED 11.11.2018.
EXHIBIT-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION ORDER NO.NIFT/HO/E.II/RECTT. JD/2013 (PART FILE) DATED 27.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY.
EXHIBIT-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED PAY FIXATION ORDER NO.
NIFT/HO/E.II/RECTT. JD/2013 (PART FILE) DATED 04.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY.
EXHIBIT-P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPRECIATION LETTER, DATED 2/3/2015 SENT BY THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPRECIATION LETTER DATED 9/3/2016 SENT BY THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2006.
O.P.(CAT).152/2018 -:13:-2025:KER:47732 EXHIBIT-P16 TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE ON PREPARATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS.
EXHIBIT-P17 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.2/9/2015- EO (ACC) OF THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DATED 18.05.2015.
EXHIBIT-P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.11012/12/2016- ESTT.A-III OF THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DATED 06.12.2016.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT-R1(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.07.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-R1(B):- TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 12.09.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-R1(C):- TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE NIFT STATUTES.
EXHIBIT-R1(D):- TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 05.09.2017.
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO C.J.