Gummadadala Venkataramaiah vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5148 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                 WRIT PETITION NO.13137 OF 2022


                                ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring

the Notification issued by the respondents vide Advt.No.01/TRAC/2022

dt.07.03.2022 for filling up the positions indicated in the Notification on

the premise of vacancies arrived, while the petitioners are rendering

their services in very similar projects with identical qualifications and

are in expectation of regularisation of their services on the verge of

longevity of their services with the respondents, as illegal, arbitrary and

unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and

consequently to set aside the said Notification and to direct the

respondents to consider the petitioners' representation dt.25.01.2022 for

regularisation and absorption into the respondent organization on

permanent basis and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may

deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the

respondents 2 and 3 are the representatives of the Telangana State W.P.No.13137 of 2022

Remote Sensing Application Centre (TRAC) (for short, "the

organisation"). TRAC is a society established with a purpose to set up

and run Telangana State Remote Sensing Application Centre, a

registered society under the Telangana State Societies Registration Act,

2001 and it is the Nodal Agency for providing remote sensing and GIS

technology application services in the State. The services include

mapping, monitoring and management of natural resources and

infrastructure at District as well as State level using remote sensing and

GIS technology sponsored by both Central and State Governments and

public and private organizations. The writ petitioners have been engaged

by TRAC and are working in the organisation. Some of the petitioners

have been appointed in the year 2013 and they continued in service till

2018 and subsequently, they were reappointed pursuant to the

Notification dt.31.08.2018 vide Advt.No.2/TRAC/2018 and are

continuing as such, while others were appointed in the year 2018 only. It

is submitted that the 2nd respondent had called for applications from

eligible candidates and after scrutinising the applications, had shortlisted

the eligible candidates who were then invited for interviews and those

who were selected in the interviews were appointed to hold their

respective posts and their appointments are indicated as on "hired basis"

W.P.No.13137 of 2022

and the candidates have entered into service agreements with the 2nd

respondent. It is submitted that all the petitioners have been selected in

the above manner and have been continuously rendering services in the

said posts. It is submitted that the 2nd and 3rd respondents have not

issued updated ID cards to the petitioners with an intention to deny the

petitioners any claims pertaining to their employment and this method is

adopted by the respondents only with an intention to deprive the

petitioners of the benefit of regularisation of their employment in the

organisation. It is submitted that the appointees are also deprived of the

benefit of social security laws like the gratuity, pension, ESI, etc. It is

submitted that, in spite of the petitioners working for the past 10 years,

and having contributed their might for the organisation, the petitioners

are being paid only consolidated pay and the projects in which the

petitioners were working are still in progress, and though the petitioners

are qualified and eligible to execute any other projects undertaken by the

respondents, the respondents have issued the Notification for engaging

fresh candidates. Therefore, the petitioners are challenging the fresh

Notification in Advt.No.01/TRAC/2022 dt.07.03.2022 issued by the

respondents calling for applications from Remote Sensing and GIS

professionals for executing works/activities of the projects taken up by W.P.No.13137 of 2022

TRAC. The petitioners apprehend that their services will be terminated

by the respondents by hiring fresh candidates with low payouts and also

deprive the petitioners of any benefits that accrue to them owing to their

long service of nearly 10 years. It is submitted that the petitioners have

submitted a representation dt.25.01.2022 to the 2nd respondent

requesting him to restore their service conditions prevalent prior to 2018

and though the same is under consideration with the respondents since

then, no action has been taken thereon. The petitioners allege that the

respondents are resorting to unfair methods to victimise the petitioners

and if the posts advertised through the Notification in

Advt.No.01/TRAC/2022 dt.07.03.2022 are filled up, the petitioners will

be deprived of their rightful position in the organisation. Therefore, they

have filed the present Writ Petition challenging the Notification issued

by the respondents in Advt.No.01/TRAC/2022 dt.07.03.2022.

3. This Court, vide orders dt.23.03.2022, had allowed I.A.Nos.1 and

3 of 2022, suspending the impugned Notification and also directed the

respondents not to disengage the services of the petitioners. Seeking

vacation of the interim directions granted above, a stay vacate petition W.P.No.13137 of 2022

i.e., I.A.No.4 of 2022 has been filed along with counter affidavit by the

respondents.

4. The petitioners have also filed a reply affidavit along with the

employment details of all the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ch. Srikanth, has also

referred to the Notification in Advt.No.01/TRAC/2022 dt.07.03.2022 to

demonstrate that it has been issued for appointment of remote sensing

and GIS professionals for executing works/activities of the projects

taken up by the TRAC for the period coterminous with the project

duration of 1 to 2 years. He referred to various posts advertised therein

and submitted that the petitioners herein are already working in similar

posts with similar duties and responsibilities. He has also referred to the

earlier Notification in Advt.No.2/TRAC/2018 dt.31.08.2018 which was

issued for hiring suitable professionals/ manpower for a period of 1 to 3

years on project mode or on consultancy basis or on deputation basis

both from the State and Central Government Organizations for

executing space technology application project taken up by TRAC. The

duration of the projects was estimated to be in the range of 1 to 3 years

and their services were to be extended for further period depending on W.P.No.13137 of 2022

the duration of the project and subject to their performance. Therefore,

he submits that since the subject Notification does not mention specific

projects but only indicates certain broad activities likely to be

undertaken by the 3rd respondent, the petitioners who possess necessary

qualifications are also eligible for executing the projects for which the

present advertisement has been given by the respondents. It is submitted

that the reason mentioned for issuing the second Notification is to

engage the candidates in respect of specific project assignments and

since the details of the projects are not given, the intention of the

respondents does not seem to engage the professionals with respect to

specific projects but is only to deprive the petitioners herein, who also

possess the necessary qualifications, of the benefits of their long service

in the organisation. The petitioners submitted that though the petitioners

have also submitted their applications online in respect of the above

advertised vacancies and the respondents had stated that the petitioners'

applications will also be considered, the petitioners have not been called

for interview and therefore, the respondents are not likely to consider

their candidature. It is further submitted that the petitioners should be

considered as contract employees and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, contract employees cannot be replaced with other contract W.P.No.13137 of 2022

employees. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the

petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Manish Gupta and another Vs. President, Jan

Bhagidari Samiti and others1. It is further submitted that the subject

Notification also suffers from lack of authority as the Notification has

no sanction from the Governing Body of the society which is a

mandatory procedure required according to the Memorandum of

Association dt.22.12.2009. It is further submitted that the projects for

which the petitioners were hired in 2012 are still continuing and

therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioners have

been appointed and are working on project based employment is untrue

since the petitioners are working on several projects from time to time or

at the same time. The learned counsel for the petitioners also drew the

attention of this Court to the Service Rules of Andhra Pradesh State

Remote Sensing Applications Centre (APSRAC), which are also

applicable to TRAC. He referred to the term 'direct recruitment' as

defined in the Rules, according to which, a candidate is said to be

recruited directly to a post, class or category in a service, in case his first

appointment thereto is made otherwise than

2022 SCC OnLine SC 485 W.P.No.13137 of 2022

(i) by promotion from the lower post, category or class in that

service or from a lower grade of any such post, category or

class, or

(ii) by appointment by agreement or contract.

It is submitted that all the petitioners have been appointed by direct

recruitment by agreement or contract after following the due process of

selection. It is submitted that Rule 8 (d) of the Service Rules provides

for termination of service by the employee by giving a notice in writing

of his intention to leave or discontinue the service. The period of notice

required shall be

(i) During probationary period: (a) One day during the first

month, and (b) One month during the rest of the

probationary period.

(ii) After confirmation: (a) Three months in case of an

employee as categorized under Class I and (b) One month

in the case of an employee in any other class.

W.P.No.13137 of 2022

Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8 provides for termination of the service of any

employee by the Society on giving him for 3 months notice or pay in

lieu of notice thereof and the power to terminate the service of an

employee shall be exercisable by the Director General only after

satisfying the Chairman that it is in the interests of the society to do so

and with the prior approval of the Governing Body. He referred to Rule

11 which refers to appointment by agreement or contract. He further

submitted that appointments have to be made only by approval of the

General Body, whereas in the present case, there is no approval for

issuance of the subject Notification. It is submitted that the petitioners

have been working for more than 10 years and terminating their services

at this stage of life would cause severe hardship to them as most of them

would be age barred and would not be able to find suitable alternative

employment. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the Notification in Advt.No.01/TRAC/2022 dt.07.03.2022 is issued only

with an intention to terminate the services of the petitioners and not with

an intention to provide employment to others on the basis of any project

and hence prays for a declaration that the Notification is not only illegal

but also arbitrary and also to direct the respondents to consider W.P.No.13137 of 2022

regularising their services and absorbing them into the services of

TRAC.

6. Learned Special Government Pleader, Sri M.V. Rama Rao, on

the other hand, submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as

the petitioners have not made the TRAC as party respondent. He

submitted that the officers of the respondent organization have been

made as parties, whereas the challenge is to the advertisement issued by

the organization and hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable on this

ground alone. He further submitted that the petitioners have been

employed on contract basis for a particular project and on completion of

the said project, their services automatically get terminated. It is

submitted that the Notification in Advt.No.01/TRAC/2022

dt.07.03.2022 has been issued in respect of certain projects in hand and

since the petitioners also have applied for the same, their applications

will also be considered. It is submitted that the agreements of service

entered into by TRAC and the petitioners in the year 2018 clearly stated

that their services are being hired for a specific period mentioned therein

and it is purely the project work which is time bound but not

employment. He further submitted that the extension of tenure is W.P.No.13137 of 2022

depending purely on the duration of the project or subject to the

satisfactory performance of the candidate and the extension of the tenure

would be solely at the discretion of the competent authority of the

organization. It is submitted that the term of the employees engaged for

the project is coterminous with the project for which they are engaged. It

is submitted that the allegation made by the petitioners that the

impugned Notification issued vide Advt.No.1/TRAC/2022

dt.07.03.2022 is with an intention to deprive the petitioners of their

appointments, is incorrect. It is submitted that the petitioners herein have

also applied for fresh project works under the Notification in

Advt.No.01/TRAC/2022 dt.07.03.2022 and the eligible candidates have

been called for interviews phase-wise basis and due to the interim

direction given by this Court, the other candidates have not been called

for interview and the entire process has been stalled. It is further

submitted that the petitioners have been allotted project works through

Notification No.2/TRAC/2018 dt.31.08.2018 and they have given

voluntary consent agreeing to all the terms and conditions of the

agreement and therefore, they cannot now turn around and claim

regularisation of their services or seek absorption into the organisation.

It is submitted that, whenever a new project is undertaken by the W.P.No.13137 of 2022

organization, a Notification is issued and if the petitioners are found to

be qualified and eligible, they are at liberty to submit their applications

and their cases will also be considered in accordance with the

requirements of the project. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioners

have no right whatsoever to seek consideration of their case for

appointment or regularisation of their services and absorption into the

organisation on the ground that they have been working in the

organisation for a long period, i.e., over 10 years. He also placed

reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

State of Gujarat and others Vs. R.J. Pathan and others2 for the

proposition that where the candidates were appointed in a temporary

unit which is not a regular establishment and the posts in which they

were appointed and continued to work were not sanctioned posts,

directing the State to consider the case of the said candidates for

regularisation sympathetically and if necessary, by creation of

supernumerary posts is not sustainable and is without jurisdiction. The

Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the

candidates therein have continued for 17 long years pursuant to the

(2022) 5 SCC 394 W.P.No.13137 of 2022

interim order passed by the High Court which period needs to be

excluded.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

this Court finds that the petitioners herein have all been appointed in the

earlier years on contractual basis and are continuing to render their

services as on today. The learned Government Pleader has submitted

that the projects for which their services have been engaged have either

been completed or nearing completion and therefore their services may

not be required further. It is submitted that due to the stay granted by

this Court in recruiting other candidates, the respondents have not been

able to recruit other candidates and are not able to execute the projects

that they have been entrusted with. After going through the offer letter

of appointment, it is noticed that it does not confer any right on the

petitioners for continuation of their services beyond the period of

contract. The petitioners are recruited for a particular project titled

"Space Based Information Support for Decentralised Planning (SIS -

DP) Project" purely on temporary basis for a period of one year and

their service period was extended from time to time due to the extension

of the project period and the extension is at the discretion of competent W.P.No.13137 of 2022

authority. In view of the above facts, particularly that the letter of offer

itself clearly stipulated that it is contractual appointment for a period of

one year, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have no right to

claim regularisation or absorption of their services in the respondent

organisation. It is also seen that some of the petitioners, though were

engaged in the years 2007 and 2012, have been continued from time to

time till 2018. In the year 2018, pursuant to a Notification issued for

engagement of professionals for a particular project, the petitioners

herein have been engaged and they are continuing since the project is

yet to be completed. The respondents being the employers are at liberty

to issue Notifications for hiring of professionals as per their requirement

and for the tenure of their project. They cannot be compelled to absorb

or regularise the services of such employees. The petitioners being

temporary employees, engaged on contract basis, cannot claim

absorption/regularisation of their services as a matter of right. The fact

that they have also been deputed to various other organisations to

discharge their duties or that they have also been given EPF Nos. and

contributions were deducted from their salaries, would not bestow any

additional rights in their favour. As per the contentions of the learned

Government Pleader, there are no regular sanctioned posts in the W.P.No.13137 of 2022

organisation and engagement of the services of the employees/

candidates is purely project based. Therefore, the employment/

engagement of the employees seems to be coterminous with the project

as is evident from the Notifications issued on the earlier occasions as

well. Even the Rules of Andhra Pradesh State Remote Sensing

Applications Centre also provide for engagement of services of the

professionals as per the requirements of the project on

agreement/contract basis. It also provides for termination of service by

issuing three months notice or pay in lieu of such notice. In the case of

the petitioners, the termination notices have not been issued. However,

apprehending that their services will be terminated because of the

recruitment proposed by the Notification vide Advt.No.01/TRAC/ 2022

dt.07.03.2022, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. In the case

of similarly placed persons who filed W.P.No.5830 of 2019, this Court

vide orders dt.06.12.2019 had dismissed the case by observing as under:

"7. Based upon the above judgments, counsel for petitioners contends that the action of respondents in not renewing the contract service of petitioners is arbitrary and illegal and prayed that appropriate directions be granted in the writ petition directing the respondents to renew the contract service of petitioners with all consequential benefits.

W.P.No.13137 of 2022

8. The Additional Advocate-General appearing for respondents has contended that the petitioners were engaged on contract basis in SIS-DP project, and as the said project has come to an end on 20.12.2018, the services of petitioners were no more required. Since the appointment of petitioners was co-terminus with the project, the services of petitioners were deemed to have been terminated on 20.12.2018. The petitioners have no legal right to seek for their continuation beyond the project period. The learned Additional Advocate-General has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit, wherein, it was categorically stated in paragraph 6 at page No.6 that the Governing Body of the Society, in its meeting held on 28.01.2017, has extended the SIS-DP project upto 20.12.2018 and that the co-terminus services of petitioners, had to be terminated on 20.12.2018 as the tenure of the project ends on the said date. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that AKS, J W.P.No.5830 of 2019 6 the petitioners were never discriminated and the persons who were continued beyond December 2018, were working in some other project, but not in SIS-DP project, therefore, the petitioners cannot compare themselves with the other Technical Officers/Junior Technical Officers working on other projects.

9. Counsel for petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to page No.149 of the additional material papers filed by them to the effect that the respondents have furnished information under the Right to Information Act stating that the SIS-DP project has come to an end in the month of December 2016 itself and the petitioners must be continued on par with other contract employees, inspite of the fact that the SIS-DP project has come to an end in December, 2016.

10. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that when the petitioners were W.P.No.13137 of 2022

appointed on contract basis in SIS-DP project co-terminus with the said project and when the project has come to an end in December, 2018, this Court cannot give a direction to continue the petitioners on contract basis in other projects, where, similarly situated persons are continued. If the contention of the petitioners that the SIS-DP project has come to an end in 2016 itself but not in December, 2018, then, the continuation of petitioners upto December 2018 itself would be contrary to the project. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the proceedings issued by the respondents under Right to Information Act, when, admittedly, the respondents have specifically stated in the counter affidavit that in the 23rd Governing Body meeting of the Society held on 28.01.2017, the tenure of SIS-DP project was extended only upto 20.12.2018. As the project itself has come to an end on 20.12.2018, the services of petitioners cannot be extended beyond the said date.

11. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for petitioners have no relevance to the facts of the case, as all those judgments relate to arbitrary exercise of power. In the instant case, the petitioners have not established the arbitrary action of respondents, as admittedly, the respondents have not passed any termination orders terminating the services of petitioners. As the project has come to an end, the services of petitioners are deemed to have been terminated. Since no orders have been passed terminating the services of petitioners, they cannot also contend that it is the case of termination simplicitor or stigmatic termination. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also."

8. Further, when the petitioners therein challenged the above order

in W.A.No.935 of 2019, a Division Bench of this Court, vide orders W.P.No.13137 of 2022

dt.20.12.2019 has confirmed the order in W.P.No.5830 of 2019 by

observing as under:

"Although the appellants have claimed that the project was continued even after 20-12-2018, they have not produced any evidence to buttress the said claim. Moreover, the appellants have claimed that the resolution dated 28-01-2017, passed by the 23rd Governing Body, is a forged one. However, the said plea was not raised by the appellants in the rejoinder filed by them in the writ petition. Moreover, no iota of evidence has been produced to establish the fact that the said resolution is a forged document. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the resolution dated 28-01-2017, passed by the 23rd Governing Body, is a forged/fabricated document. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in concluding that in fact the SIS-DP Project was continued till 20-12-2018. Considering the fact that the appointment was co-terminus with the continuation of the project, the learned Single Judge was justified in concluding that once the project is over on 20-12-2018, the appellants cannot claim any right to be continued in their service. By efflux of time, and due to the contract entered between the appellants and the respondent-Department, their services have come to naught."

9. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioners are distinguishable on facts and are therefore not applicable

to the case on hand. In the case of C. Dhanamjaya Vs. Venkateswara

University3, the A.P. High Court was considering the issue of alteration

of service conditions when matter is sub judice before the Court and the

2013 0 Supreme (AP) 344 : 2014 1 ALD 448 W.P.No.13137 of 2022

learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the observations of

the Court on the employment conditions in India and not on the findings

of the Court on the issue. Further, in the case of Manish Gupta and

another Vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others (1 supra),

the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the case of appointment of

teachers as guest faculty from year to year and it was in these

circumstances that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that an ad hoc

employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and that he

can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by

following a regular procedure prescribed. In the case before this Court,

the petitioners were appointed for a project and this Court has already

held that at the end of the project, the coterminous employment also

comes to an end.

10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and the orders of

this Court in similar cases, this Court does not find any merit in this case

and it is accordingly dismissed. In view of the above finding that the

petitioners have no right to continue beyond the period of their project,

the other grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not

being adjudicated. Even the preliminary objection of the respondents W.P.No.13137 of 2022

about the maintainability of the Writ Petition for non-joinder of proper

and necessary party is also left unadjudicated.

11. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

12. However, since the petitioners also claim to have applied for the

posts advertised and in the counter affidavit, it is averred that their

candidature would also be considered, the respondents are directed to

consider the candidature of the petitioners herein for appointment

pursuant to Notification vide Advt.No.01/TRAC/2022 dt.07.03.2022 if

they are otherwise eligible and qualified.

13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall

also stand dismissed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 17.10.2022 Svv