Jharkhand High Court
Saket Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India Through The ... on 19 May, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No.1563 of 2023
Saket Kumar Singh ... ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Education and Industry,
Government of Jharkhand, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
Near Central Secretariat, New Delhi
2. National Institute of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (Formerly
National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology) through its Registrar,
Hatia, Jagannathpur, Ranchi ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, CGC
---------
02/19.05.2023 The Petitioner has approached this court with the prayer
for quashing of Advertisement No. C/01/2023 dated 01.03.2023 published
by Respondent No. 2, wherein walk-in-interview for recruitment of Assistant
Professor on contractual basis has been made though the present petitioner is
working on the same post. Further, the petitioner prays for issuance of
direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue on the post
of Assistant Professor in the Department of Electronic and Computer
Engineering.
2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. An
advertisement being Advertisement No.02/2021 was floated by the
respondents for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor on contractual
basis for one year and which could be extended up to three years. Pursuant
to the same, the petitioner being eligible, applied and appointed upon
selection as Assistant Professor in Electronics and Computer Engineering
Department vide letter No. 654 dated 07.04.2022 on contractual basis for one
year. It is further the case of the petitioner that at the time of appointment, he
was not having the degree of Ph.D., but he is pursuing Pd.D. course. The
petitioner from the date of appointment, has been working diligently on the
said post and has been discharging all his duties in the best possible manner,
but the Respondent No. 2 came up with another advertisement vide
advertisement No. R/03/2022 dated 07.01.2023 by which application for
recruitment of Assistant Professor on regular basis has been invited. The said
advertisement came up prior to the completion of contractual period of the
petitioner and the Department of Electronics and Computer Engineering was
also part of the advertisement in which the petitioner was already appointed
on contractual post for the term which may be extended.
3. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 2
did not disclose the number of vacancies in the said advertisement. Later on,
the Respondent No. 2 came up with the revised advertisement vide memo no.
604 dated 09.01.2023. Later, on 01.03.2023, the Respondents again came up
with the advertisement vide advertisement no. C/01/2023 by which the
application for post of Assistant Professor on contractual basis has been
invited against vacant post. As the respondents are continuing with the
regular appointment process as well as contractual appointment process
simultaneously, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this
Court, challenging the Advertisement No. C/01/2023 dated 01.03.2023
published by Respondent No. 2 for contractual basis.
4. During the pendency of the writ petition, a Letter dated
31.03.2023 was issued, by which, the petitioner was intimated that his
contract is to be ended by 10.04.2023 and as such, to vacate the
accommodation provided by the Institute, which is also challenged by the
petitioner, by filing I.A. No.3347 of 2023.
5. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the
Advertisement No.C/01/2023 dated 01.03.2023 on the ground that the
Petitioner is working on the same post on contractual basis from 2022 itself
and law is well settled that contractual employee cannot be replaced by
another contractual employee which is illegal in the eyes of law. The
petitioner is having experience for the said post, which will be fruitful to the
institution if the contract of the petitioner is extended. There is no difference
in earlier appointment, by which the petitioner has been appointed on
contract basis for one year and the present Advertisement No. C/01/2023
dated 01.03.2023 for one semester on contractual basis and as such, it can be
comfortably said that contract employee has been replaced by another
contract employee. The services of the petitioner has remained satisfactory
and as such, impugned advertisement for contractual appointment is not
tenable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the Advertisement floated
for regular appointment does not indicate the number of vacancies and also
qualification prescribed is not in consonance with the required qualification
for the post. The Respondents are continuing with the regular as well as the
contractual appointment process simultaneously and qualifications are
different for same post. AICTE/UGC prescribes the qualification for
appointment Assistant professor in Engineering/Technology as B.E/ B.Tech
and M.E. / M.Tech in the relevant branch with 1 st Class or equivalent either
in B.E./ B.Tech or M.E./ M.Tech but as the respondents have published two
different advertisements with different qualification while asking for
contractual and regular appointment, which is not tenable in the eyes of law.
The respondents No.2 was not empower to enhance /alter the qualification in
the manner, which would be detrimental for the students as the new
qualification had no concern with the parent department. Mr. Saurav Arun
places heavy reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Piyara Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2016) SCC Online SC 1626
and submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the said
judgment.
6. Per contra, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the
respondents. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No.2
assisted by Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, learned counsel vehemently opposes the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner
does not fulfill the requisite qualification for regular appointment. The
petitioner was appointed on contractual basis for one year, which can be
extendable, but now the contract of the petitioner is over, it is not a right of
the petitioner to extend his contract period. The respondents have not
extended any contract of any employee. Since the respondents have already
floated an advertisement for regular posts and this will take time and most
probably in July-August, therefore, an advertisement dated 01.03.2023 was
floated to fill up the post as a time gap arrangement, this is also temporary in
nature.
7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of
the parties and on perusal of the records, the argument of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that one set of contractual employee cannot be replaced by
another set of contractual employee and reliance in this regard in Piyara
Singh (supra) case is concerned, the same is not acceptable to this Court as
in the present case the facts are different and are being distinguished on the
ground that in that case, the petitioners are working since long and their
contract was not come to an end, but in the instant case, the contract of the
petitioner has come to an end on 10.04.2023 and his contract was never
extended, no right as accrued to the petitioner to get his contract extended. It
is the absolute discretion of the employer to give extension or not to give
extension. It is settled position of law that the Contractual employment has
no any vested right to continue nor normally it is open for the Court to give
any mandate to an employer to continue the contract or to change the status
of the contractual employment in any manner. Once the same having been
accepted by consent of both the sides without any demur. The issue fell for
consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Yogesh Mahajan
Vs. Professor R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 218, wherein it has held that " It is settled
law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed
from time to time. That being so, we are in agreement with the Central
Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was unable to
show any statutory or other right to have his contract extended beyond 30 th
June, 2010. Further, temporary /contractual appointment has been issued,
just to fill the post for one semester only, though the same can be extendable,
by way of stop gap arrangement on temporary basis, it is only for the period,
till regular appointments are made since the regular appointment process is
going on and same will be concluded till July-August, 2023. The appointment
of the petitioner was for a fixed tenure and it cannot be said that earlier the
same was extended and on that basis, his extension should be continued and
post cannot be filled up, by another contractual employee. The respondents
have not extended any contract of any employee. Further, the respondents
have published the Advertisement for Regular Appointment and since the
same will take time and most probably by July-August, 2023 same will be
completed, therefore, an advertisement dated 01.03.2023 was floated to fill
up the post as a time gap arrangement, this is also temporary in nature and as
such, there is no requirement of extension of contract period for another one
year i.e. beyond recruitment of regular faculty, exceeding the sanctioned
strength of 48. The petitioner has mentioned in para 36 to the writ petition
that he has already appeared in the appointment process (regular) under
protest.
8. Further, it appears from the records that his contract came to an
end on 10.04.2023, rightly he has been asked for to vacate the
accommodation as upon termination of contract, there is no illegality or
infirmity in issuance of Letter dated 31.03.2023, which was filed by way of
I.A. No.3347 of 2023.
9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and
judicial pronouncement, no interference is warranted in the instant case.
Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.
10. Pending I.A., if any also stands dismissed.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
Punit/-
