Manipur High Court
Murli Manohar vs Union Of India And Another on 7 November, 2023
KABORAMB
AM LARSON Item - 38-39
Digitally signed by
KABORAMBAM LARSON
Date: 2023.11.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
14:03:05 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
W.P.(C) No.764 of 2023
MURLI MANOHAR
....Petitioner/s
- Versus -
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
...Respondent/s
With MC[W.P.(C)] No. 342 of 2023
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
07.11.2023
[1] Heard Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned Sr.PCCG for the respondents.
[2] Vide order dated 03.11.2023, this Court issued notice and the
learned counsel for the respondents sought time for taking instruction
from the respondents. Accordingly, these matters are listed today, i.e., on
07.11.2023 for consideration of the interim order.
[3] Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned Sr.PCCG for the respondents seeks
2(two) weeks' time for filing counter affidavit and thereafter, Mr. Anjan
Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks one week's time for
filing rejoinder affidavit, if any.
[4] Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner prays
for passing an appropriate interim order in the present case.
[5] It is submitted that pursuant to a notification issued by Indian
Institute of Information Technology, Manipur (IIIT, Manipur), the
petitioner was appointed as Visiting Assistant Professor in the Institute on
25.06.2015 along with 5(five) other candidates and as one of the
appointee did not join only 5(five) persons were engaged as Visiting
Assistant Professor in the Institute. This appointment of contract basis
has been extended from time to time and in the case of the present
petitioner, it was last extended vide order dated 30.05.2023 valid from
03.06.2023 to 02.11.2023
[6] It is also submitted that the terms of appointment at Sl. No.12
provides that appointment is purely temporary in nature and temporary
service is terminable with three months' notice on either side.
[7] Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the contract service of the petitioner has not been extended
while the other four persons who were initially appointed along with the
petitioner, are allowed to continue.
[8] It is submitted that termination of the service of the petitioner
without issuing a prior 3(three) months' notice and termination order and
treating differently from other similarly situated persons, is patently illegal
and prayed for passing interim order by allowing the petitioner to
continue in his service till the pendency of the present writ petition.
[9] Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner
draws the attention of this Court to an order dated 30.01.2023 passed by
a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.765 of 2016 wherein service
of 2(two) persons were not extended where the service of persons
similarly situated with, have been extended and this Court directed the
authority/respondent to reinstate the service of the petitioners.
[10] Per contra, Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned Sr.PCCG for the
respondents draws the attention of this Court to Para 2 and 3 of the
terms of appointment which read as under:
2. The appointment is valid for a period of five month from
03.06.2023 or the remaining period from the date of joining,
whichever is less out of the period of five months and
extendable for a further period based on performance.
3. On expiry of the contract period this temporary appointment
shall get terminated automatically.
[11] Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned Sr.PCCG also draws the attention of
this Court to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Yogesh Mahajan vs. Prof. R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute of
Medical Sciences reported in (2018) 3 SCC 218 Para 6 which held that
contract employee has no right to have his or her contract renew from
time to time. It is further submitted that they are complaints against the
petitioner and his performance is not up to bar. In the circumstances, his
service was not extended.
[12] Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that no show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner with
regard to any complaint or to his poor performance and as such, these
are after-thought.
[13] This Court is of the opinion that the present case requires
hearing after filing counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, if any. Since
the four persons who were initially appointed along with the petitioner,
are allowed to continue, the petitioner is also permitted to continue in the
service till the next date. However, this Court does not express any
opinion on the regularization as prayed in the writ petition.
[14] List these cases on 23.11.2023 for final disposal.
[15] A copy of this order may be furnished to the learned counsels
appearing for the parties in due course.
JUDGE
- Larson
