Gauhati High Court
Ranjit Kumar Neog vs The Union Of India And 12 Ors on 18 March, 2025
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010147042020
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4595/2020
RANJIT KUMAR NEOG
S/O MAKHAN CHANDRA NEOG, R/O VILL RAJAHOWLI, PO KOPOKATOLI,
PS AND DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 12 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF
PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, PIN-
110001
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER
OIL INDIA LIMITED
A NAVARATNA PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING
HEADQUARTERS AT DULIAJAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN 786602
3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (CSR)
OIL INDIA LIMITED
HEADQUARTERS AT DULIAJAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786602
4:THE ADVERTISER (OIL INDIA LIMITED)
EMPLOYEE RELATION DEPARTMENT
PO DULIAJAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786602
Page No.# 2/9
5:OIL INDIA LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY RESIDENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
PO-DULIAJAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786602
6:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (LAND AND LEGAL) AND CENTRAL
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
OIL INDIA LIMITED
HEADQUARTERS AT DULIAJAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786602
7:THE GENERAL MANAGER(PERSONNEL)
OIL INDIA LIMITED
HEADQUARTERS AT DULIAJAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786602
8:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HUMAN RESOURCE AND
ADMINISTRATION)
OIL INDIA LIMITED
HEADQUARTERS AT DULIAJAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786602
9:KOUSHIK BISWAS
SENIOR ENGINEER (PIPELINE) RE-DESIGNATE AS SUPERINTENDING
ENGINEER (PIPELINE)
OIL INDIA LIMITED
HEADQUARTERS
DULIAJAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786602
10:HEMANT KUMAR
SENIOR ENGINEER(PIPELINE) RE-DESIGNATED AS MANAGER (BD-CGD)
OIL INDIA LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE PLOT NO. 19
NEAR FILM CITY
SECTOR 16 A
NOIDA 201301
Page No.# 3/9
11:AMIT DUTTA
SENIOR ENGINEER (PIPELINE) RE-DESIGNATED AS SUPERINTENDING
ENGINEER (PIPELINE)
OIL INDIA LIMITED
HEADQUARTERS
DULIAJAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786602
12:SUNIL BISHNOI
SENIOR ENGINEER (PIPELINE) RE-DESIGNATED AS SUPERINTENDING
ENGINEER (PIPELINE)
OIL INDIA LIMITED
HEADQUARTERS
DULIAJAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786602
13:THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
CIC BHAWAN
BABA GANGNATH MARG
MUNIRKA
NEW DELHI-11006
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B ACHARYYA, MS. M ACHARYYA
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MS N SHARMA (R-9,10,11,12),MR. R C SAIKIA (R-
9,10,11,12),MS. K SAIKIA (R-9,10,11,12),MS. N DEY (R-12),MS. S GHOSH (R2 TO 8),MR. K
KALITA (R2 TO 8),MR. M HUSSAIN (R2 TO 8),S N SARMA (R2 TO 8),MR. C K S BARUAH
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Date : 18-03-2025
Heard Mr. B. Acharyya, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard
Page No.# 4/9
Mr. A. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Oil India Limited (OIL) appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bora,
learned counsel representing the private respondent Nos. 9 to 12. None has appeared for
the respondent No. 13.
2. The writ petitioner herein is aggrieved due to non-consideration of his prayer for
regularization of services under the Oil India Limited (OIL) even after completing 10 years
of contractual service. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 26-01-2007 the
OIL, Duliajan had issued an advertisement for engaging experienced mechanical engineer
on contract basis for a purely temporary requirement for "Pipeline Expansion Project"
from Numaligarh to Siliguri (PEP-NSPL). The advertisement itself had mentioned that the
contract would be valid for a period of one year or till completion of the project. In
response to the advertisement notice dated 26-01-2007, the writ petitioner had submitted
his application. After considering his candidature the petitioner was engaged on contract
basis as a mechanical engineer vide appointment order dated 23-04-2007 for a period of
one year. Accordingly, a contract agreement was signed by and between the petitioner
and the OIL for rendering service for one year. As the scope of the work and period of its
completion got extended, the petitioner was re-engaged as mechanical engineer after the
expiry of the initial period of one year. Accordingly, separate contract agreements for
rendering his service under the OIL for further durations were also signed from time to
time. Eventually, the contractual services of the petitioner came to an end on 18-11-2017.
3. In the meantime, the OIL had issued an advertisement notice dated 12-07-2017
inviting applications for filling up various posts in Gr-'C', which included as many as 04
Page No.# 5/9
(four) posts of Senior Pipeline Engineer. The advertisement notice dated 12-07-2017 had
laid down the educational qualification, experience and other eligibility conditions for
participating in the recruitment process. Since the petitioner was over-aged, hence, he
could not submit his application in response to the advertisement notice dated 12-07-
2017. Situated thus, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.
4642/2017 inter-alia challenging the advertisement notice dated 12-07-2017 with a
further prayer to regularize his services in a permanent post. Since no interim order was
granted by this Court, the recruitment process went ahead and the same was concluded
whereby, the selected candidates, viz. the private respondents herein were appointed.
With the appointment of the private respondents, W.P.(C) No. 4642/2017 had become
infractuous for all practical purposes. As such, on a prayer made by the writ petitioner by
filing I.A.(C) No. 1476/2020, this Court had passed order dated 09-10-2020, permitting
the petitioner to withdraw the said writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 4642/2017.
4. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has once again approached before this
Court with a prayer to interfere with the advertisement notice dated 12-07-2017 and also
to issue a direction upon the respondents to regularize his services. The petitioner has
also prayed for issuance of a direction to the Central Information Commissioner to initiate
disciplinary action against the respondent No. 6 on account of his alleged failure to follow
the mandate of Right to Information Act, 2005, whereby the respondent No. 6 had
allegedly furnished false information to the petitioner with malafide intent.
5. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has been contested by the OIL authorities
as well as the private respondents by filing separate counter affidavits. The stand of the
Page No.# 6/9
authorities, reduced to it essence, is that the petitioner being a contractual appointee,
whose continuance was purely on the basis of separate contract agreements entered from
time to time, the petitioner cannot claim any right of regularization of his service against a
permanent vacancy.
6. Mr. B. Acharyya, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has argued that having
rendered long and continuous years of service for more than 10 years and in view of the
nature of work performed by the petitioner which was of perennial nature, it would not be
open for the authorities to dispense with the service of petitioner in such a manner. Mr.
Acharyya submits that keeping in mind the experience and long years of service rendered
by the petitioner, the OIL authorities were duty bound to permanently absorb the
petitioner by regularizing his services. Hence, this writ petition. In order to buttress
his above argument, Mr. Acharyya has placed heavy reliance on a decision of the Supreme
Court rendered in the case of Jaggo Vs. UoI & Ors. reported in 2024 INSC 1034.
7. Mr. A. Sarma, learned standing counsel, OIL, on the other hand, submits that the
petitioner does not have any enforceable right and considering the fact that the duly
selected candidates, on being appointed, are continuing in service for more than 05 years,
at this stage, there cannot be any question of interfering with their orders of
appointments.
8. Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the private respondents has also
made similar submission by contending that no case has been made out by the petitioner
so as to interfere with the appointment of his clients.
Page No.# 7/9
9. I have considered the submission advanced at the Bar and have also gone through
the materials available on record. At the very outset, it would be pertinent to mention
herein that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was originally engaged as
contractual employee for a period of one year. A contract agreement was entered into by
and between the petitioner and the OIL which had clearly mentioned that the
engagement of the petitioner would be for a period of one year. Thereafter, the petitioner
was engaged from time to time on several occasions albeit, based on separate contractual
agreements, inter-alia laying down the duration of his engagement on each occasion. On
some occasions, the engagement of the petitioner was for a period of six months, while in
some others, it was upto one year. However, there was a break in between the successive
contractual engagements of the petitioner ranging between 02 days to upto 16 days on
odd occasions. Therefore, it is not a fact that the petitioner has been in continuous
engagement under the OIL. Be that as it may, since the writ petitioner was on contractual
employment under the OIL, based on different contract agreements containing specific
terms and conditions of service, his service conditions would be strictly governed by the
terms of the contract. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that his engagement at any
point of time was against a regular/ permanent vacancy. Under such circumstances, this
Court is of the view that the question of absorbing the petitioner against a regular
vacancy, that too, without his participation in a selection process, cannot arise in the eyes
of law. In other words, permitting a contractual appointee to be absorbed against a
regular vacancy without undergoing a regular selection/ recruitment process would
amount to allowing backdoor entry in service which, in the opinion of this Court, would
Page No.# 8/9
not be permissible under the law. Unfortunately when the advertisement notice dated 12-
07-2017 was issued, the petitioner was over-aged as a result of which he could not take
part in the recruitment process. This Court is of the opinion that although all sympathy
would go with the petitioner, yet, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, no
enforceable right of the petitioner to be regularized in service against a permanent
vacancy can be recognized by this Court.
10. In the case of Jaggo (Supra), the petitioners therein, who were all engaged as
Safaiwalas on ad-hoc basis, were allowed to continue for long years. Those petitioners
had claimed regularization in service by urging that due to the continuous and long years
of service rendered by them and the nature of duty performed by them, they were
entitled to be regularized in service. The applicants had approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, Delhi seeking regularization of service,
which prayer was rejected by the learned CAT. The High Court of Judicature at Delhi had
also confirmed the order of the learned Tribunal. Embolden by the decision of the
Tribunal, the authorities had terminated the service of the applicants without issuing any
prior notice. It was in such fact situation, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed
that workers engaged on temporary basis for extended period, specially when their roles
are integral to the organizations functioning, would have a right to be considered for
regularization. Consequently, a direction was issued to the authorities to take back the
applicants by setting aside their orders of termination from service.
11. After going thought the aforesaid decision, this Court is of the opinion that the
judgment rendered in the case of Jaggo (Supra) is clearly distinguishable facts. That
Page No.# 9/9
was not a case where the initial engagement of the employees were on contractual basis.
Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio law laid down in the
case of Jaggo (Supra) will not have any bearing, in the facts of the present case.
For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and
the same is accordingly dismissed.
There would be no order as to cost.
JUDGE
GS
Comparing Assistant
