Himachal Pradesh High Court
Cwp No. 540/2019 vs State Of Hp And Another on 10 July, 2019
Bench: V. Ramasubramanian, Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
CWP No. 540 of 2019 along with connected matters.
Judgment reserved on : 04.07.2019 Decided on: 10 .7.2019
1. CWP No. 540/2019 Sanjeev Kumar and others .....Petitioners.
Versus State of HP and another ......Respondents. ______________________________________________________
2. CWP No. 541/2019.
Vinod Kumar and others .....Petitioners.
r Versus
State of HP and another ......Respondents.
______________________________________________________
3. CWP No. 542/2019.
Ajay Kumar and others .....Petitioners.
Versus State of HP and another ......Respondents. ______________________________________________________
4. CWP No. 543/2019.
Pankaj Chauhan and others .....Petitioners.
Versus State of HP and another ......Respondents. ______________________________________________________
5. CWP No. 551/2019.
Vivek Sangal and others .....Petitioners.
Versus State of HP and another ......Respondents. ______________________________________________________
6. CWP No. 743/2019.
Jitender Choudhary and others .....Petitioners.
Versus State of HP and others ......Respondents. ______________________________________________________ ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP -2- Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
.
CWP No. 540/2019 a/w CWPs No. 541 to 543 and 551/2019.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M.L. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with M/s B.L. Soni, G.K. Nadda and Aman Parth, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Adarsh K. Sharma, Ms. Ritta Goswami, Mr. Ashwani Sharma and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocates General, for r respondents/State.
CWP No. No. 743/2019.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Adarsh K. Sharma, Ms. Ritta Goswami, Mr. Ashwani Sharma and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocates General, for respondents/State.
Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 & 5 to 7.
____________________________________________________ V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice The petitioners, who were engaged on contract basis from time to time as Instructors/Trainers in different Industrial Training Institutes, have come up with these writ petitions, challenging the cut-off date of 31.07.2015, fixed under the Notification of the Department of Technical Education, Government of Himachal Pradesh, dated 03.10.2015, for regularization of the ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP -3- services of persons who were similarly appointed. Alternatively, the petitioners pray for a direction to the respondents to frame a .
similar Policy as framed by the Notification dated 03.10.2015, for the benefit of those who were appointed after the cut-off date, namely 31.07.2015. Incidentally, the petitioners also challenge the last communication dated 23.08.2018, by which their services were directed to be extended till the end of the current academic session/year, with a further direction not to engage their services thereafter. r
2. Heard Shri M.L. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the respective petitioners, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General for the respondents-
State and Mr. S.D. Gill, learned Counsel for the respective respondents.
Brief Preclude:
3. It appears that the Government of India launched a Scheme way back in the year 2003 for the up-gradation of about 500 Government Industrial Training Institutes in the country into Centers of Excellence. The Scheme was actually floated in 2005- 2006. As per the statistics, there were 1896 Government Industrial Training Institutes in the country, as on 01.01.2007.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP -4-4. In 2007-2008, the Government of India announced the up-gradation of even the remaining 1396 Government ITIs into .
Centers of Excellence through Public Private Partnership.
5. Accordingly, a Scheme titled "Upgradation of 1396 Government ITIs through Public Private Partnership" with a total outlay of `3,665 crores was framed. The Scheme received the approval of CCEA (Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs) and guidelines were issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Director General of Employment and Training of the Government of India, on 01.04.2008.
6. In tune with the aforesaid Scheme, a Tripartite Agreement was entered into between (i) the Government of India;
(ii) the Government of Himachal Pradesh and (iii) the Industry Partner of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, namely M/s NTPC Ltd (National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.).
7. Under this Agreement, the Government of India was to provide interest free loan of up to `2.5 crores to the Institute Management Committee of the ITIs. The Government of India was also required to establish a National Steering Committee as an apex body for grading the implementation and monitoring of the Scheme.
8. In terms of the Agreement, the Government of Himachal Pradesh constituted an Institute Management ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP -5- Committee, which was registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act. Under Clause 4 (c) (vi) of Section B of the said .
Agreement, dated 31.10.2008, the Government of Himachal Pradesh undertook to delegate to the Institute Management Committee, adequate administrative and the financial powers to appoint contract faculty as per need. Under Clause 4(g) of Section B of the Agreement, the Government was obliged to ensure that the sanctioned strength of Instructors in ITIs is always filled up.
9. Pursuant to the aforesaid Agreement, a large number of candidates were appointed to the Institute Management Committee as Instructors/Trainers on contract basis. After continuing on contract basis, for a long period of time, the craving for equal pay for equal work and for regularization started. This led to a batch of writ petitions being instituted on the file of this Court in CWP Nos. 2978 of 2012 and batch of cases.
10. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the batch of cases by a judgment dated 05.03.2014, declaring that the Instructors/Trainers appointed on contract basis shall be deemed to have been appointed as Lecturers with all consequential benefits. The State was directed to regularize the services of those who had completed six years of uninterrupted service.
11. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in the said batch of cases, Letters Patent Appeals were filed both by ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP -6- the State and by a few private parties. These appeals in LPAs No.107/2014 etc. were allowed by a Bench of this Court by a .
judgment dated 03.12.2014. The Division Bench, eventually, gave a direction to the State Government to examine the case of the petitioners in those batch of cases for regularization or conversion on contractual basis.
12. In implementation of the said judgment of the Division Bench, the Government framed a Policy by way of an 'One Time Measure' and issued a Notification dated 03.10.2015.
r By this Notification, the Government took over the services of all the teaching and non-teaching employees engaged on contract basis either through the Institute Management Committee or through the Student Welfare Fund. But the benefit was restricted to those engaged up to 31.07.2015. This cut-off date, namely 31.07.2015 was taken on the basis that the same was the date of closing of the academic session 2014-2015 in Government Engineering Colleges, Polytechnics and ITIs.
13. The Scheme made it clear that it is only those who were engaged up to 31.07.2015, will be entitled to the benefit of absorption, upon their completing 7 years of service or 9600 hours of service, whichever was earlier.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP -7-14. It may be useful to extract the Notification dated 03.10.2015, as the litigation on hand, is only a product of the said .
Notification.
"Notification The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to take over the services of all the teaching and non teaching employees engaged on contract basis through Student Welfare Fund, Institute Management Committee(s) and under other schemes up to 31.07.2015 (i.e date of closing of academic year 2014-2015) in Government rEngineering Colleges, Polytechnics and Industrial Training Institutes of the Department of Technical Education Vocational & Industrial Training, on contract basis after completion of 7 years' or 9600 hours whichever is earlier as one time measure, in the public interest, with immediate effect subject to the condition no litigation is subsisting and an undertaking to this effect shall be taken from all the concerned. The terms and conditions are as under:-
(i) That the service of all such eligible employees shall be taken over on contract basis after completion of 7 years' or 9600 hours service whichever is earlier in accordance with the terms and conditions (for contract) issued by the Department of Personnel vide their letter No. PER (AP) C -B (2) 2/2015 dated 07.05.2015, further amended from time to time and fresh contract agreement in respect of all the ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP -8- existing employees as on 31.07.2015 shall be executed accordingly.
(ii) That the services of all such employees shall .
be taken over on contract basis against available vacancies failing which against resultant vacancies and existing mal-
engagement shall be discontinued
immediately.
(iii) That the services of the all the existing incumbents can be utilized without reducing their salary by transferring/deputing them in other institutions as per requirement from time to time with the approval of competent r authority, in the interest of the students. An undertaking to this effect shall be taken from all the existing incumbents immediately.
(iv) That the candidate should be medically fit for the post. The medical fitness certificate of the candidate shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions contained in relevant rules.
(v) That taking over the services on contract basis shall be subject to verification of character and antecedents of the candidate as provided in relevant rules and the candidate shall be liable to be posted in any institution as per requirement, within the State.
(vi) That for the determination of date of birth of the candidate concerned, criteria as laid down in relevant rules shall be observed.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP -9- (vii) That the services of such candidates shall be subject to the condition that the
representation in service for all the reserved .
categories viz. SC, ST and OBC etc. shall be treated as per the category from which the candidate belongs and the candidate shall submit a certificate of SC, ST, OBC and other categories etc. The remaining points as per reservation roster be filled up through the direct recruitment.
(viii) That in future, engagements of any staff on contract basis through Student Welfare Fund, Institute Management Committees r and under any other Schemes in the institutions existing as on 31.07.2015 in the Department of Technical Education shall not be made without the approval of the State Government, failing which suitable disciplinary action shall be initiated against concerned Head(s) of respective institution(s).
The Director, Technical Education Vocational & Industrial Training and the concerned Heads of the respective Institution(s) are directed to ensure that all the terms and conditions are kept in view."
The Case of the Petitioners:
15. It appears that during the interregnum between the cut-off date, namely 31.07.2015 and the date of the Notification, namely 03.10.2015, the petitioners in all these writ petitions, came ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP
- 10 -
to be appointed on contract basis at the time of the commencement of the academic year 2015-2016.
.
16. Though, the initial appointment was for a period of one year, the contracts of appointment of the petitioners herein, were renewed from time to time.
17. At the time of the second renewal, the Government administered a word of caution, by their letter dated 23.08.2018, directing the Director of Technical Education, not to re-engage the petitioners after the expiry of the term of the contract at the end of the academic session/semester. Finding that the said letter nipped their hopes of getting absorbed on regular basis in the bud, the petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions.
Contentions:
18. Contending that the petitioners are also entitled to be absorbed on regular basis, on par with persons who benefitted by the Policy dated 03.10.2015, it was argued by Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners:-
(i) That the prescription of an artificial cut-off date for extending the benefit of the Policy dated 03.10.2015, is arbitrary and unfair, offending Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution, as the same has no nexus with the object sought to be archived by the Policy;::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP
- 11 -
(ii) That all persons appointed on contract basis, both before and after 31.07.2015, form the .
same class and no intelligible differentia exists between the two, justifying a discriminatory treatment;
(iii) That the petitioners herein as well as the beneficiaries of the Policy, dated 03.10.2015 were selected for appointment, in accordance r with the same set of procedure; they were appointed by the same Authority; their appointments were approved by identical Selection Committees; they were recruited through a process of selection comprising of written test and interview; they were selected from the open market through newspaper advertisements and their conditions of service were also similar and hence, no artificial discrimination can be made between these two classes of servants; and
(iv) That the petitioners have a legitimate expectation that the Government, which is a model employer, will treat them on equal terms ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP
- 12 -
with those who benefitted by the Policy dated 03.10.2015.
.
19. In response to the aforesaid contentions, it was argued by the learned Advocate General that the Policy dated 03.10.2015 was intended to an 'One Time Measure'; that the appointments on contract basis are actually appointments made otherwise than through the Statutory Rules and, hence, no right of absorption would inure to the appointees; that when the Scheme itself was framed for the benefit of a set of individuals, who were in service as on a particular date, the question of introducing an artificial cut-off date and the question of discriminating between two sets of candidates would not arise and that the arguments based upon articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution are ill-founded Discussion and Analysis:
20. The first contention of Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, is that the prescription of an artificial cut-off date was violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, the cut-off date has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
21. But, in our considered opinion, the above contention is completely misconceived. We have already brought on record the historical background, in which the Policy dated 03.10.2015 was issued. At the cost of repetition, it may be pointed out that a set of ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP
- 13 -
candidates, who were repeatedly appointed on contract basis for a number of years from 2007-208, approached this Court, fought a .
legal battle up to the Supreme Court and got a direction to the Government to frame a Scheme for their regular absorption. It is only in pursuance of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a group of Letters Patent Appeals that the Policy dated 03.10.2015 was formulated. The very judgment of the Division Bench, dated 03.12.2014, in LPAs No. 107 of 2014 and a batch of cases, was rendered for the benefit of those, who had spent their youth and who had become ineligible to participate in competitive examinations for appointment on regular basis.
22. As a matter of fact, the Division Bench by its judgment dated 03.12.2014, actually over turned the decision of the learned Single Judge, mandating the regularization of the services of the writ petitioners. This was due to the fact that a mandate by this Court to regularize the services of these persons was not permissible in law. But the Division Bench found that by a communication dated 25.04.2011, the Director of Technical Education himself had recommended to the Government to consider the cases of those, who were fully qualified, as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and who had been working for a particular number of years continuously.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP- 14 -
23. Therefore, by its very nature, the Policy dated 03.10.2015, brought forth pursuant to the decision of this Court, .
which itself was based upon the recommendations made by the Director of Technical Education, was supposed to be an 'One Time Measure'. The Policy is not to be converted into a death knell for the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The Policy cannot be converted into an 'All Time Measure' from being an 'One Time Measure'.
24. In fact, the date 31.07.2015 was not chosen by the Government arbitrarily by employing the rule of thumb. The date 31.07.2015 coincides with the date of closure of the academic year 2014-2015. Therefore, there was not even any arbitrariness on the part of the Government in choosing the cut-off date i.e. 31.07.2015.
There was a scientific reason as to why the said date was chosen.
25. In so far as fixation of cut-off date is concerned, the Courts have frowned only upon such fixation of cut-off dates that discriminated between two sets of individuals forming part of the same class. Interestingly, most of the cases, in relation to this principle, have arisen out of the grant of the some benefits to the retired pensioners. The earliest decision of the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India, ( AIR 1983 SC 130) also related to the case of pensioners.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP- 15 -
26. While explaining the decision in D.S. Nakara, the Supreme Court pointed out in Government of Andhra Pradesh & .
others Vs. N. Subbarayudu & others, [(2008) 14 SCC, 702] that a cut-off date is fixed by the Executive Authority keeping in view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and attending circumstances. In fact, the rigid view taken in D.S. Nakara was actually watered down subsequently and the same was noted by the Supreme Court in its decision in State of Punjab & others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & others, (2005 (6) SCC
754). It was observed in the said decision as follows:
"We are afraid that the refrain of D.S. Nakara has been flayed too often to retain its initial charm, which has been worn thin by subsequent dicta."
27. In fact, the argument of discrimination, is advanced on the basis of a mis-conception that persons appointed before 31.07.2015 and those appointed after 31.07.2015 form the same class. They do not. Persons appointed before 31.07.2015 had approached this Court and secured a judgment directing the Government to frame a Policy, in tune with the recommendations made by the Director of Technical Education in his letter dated 22.04.2011. Anyone and everyone appointed before 31.07.2015 were not given the benefit of the Policy dated 03.10.2015. It was only those who completed 7 years or 9600 hours of service, who ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP
- 16 -
were to be granted the benefit, upon their completing 7 years of service or 9600 hours of teaching, whichever was earlier.
.
28. To compare a person who had completed 7 years of service or 9600 hours of teaching before 31.07.2015 on par with the persons who was appointed after 31.07.2015 and who had rendered a few hours of service before the date of issue of the Policy, namely 03.10.2015, is much worse than comparing apples and oranges. They certainly do not form part of the same class and they cannot object to the prescription of the cut-off date.
29. The object sought to be achieved through the prescription of the cut-off date is to render a benefit upon those who have already rendered sufficiently long period of service.
Therefore, the first contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is wholly unsustainable and hence, it is rejected.
30. The second contention of Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, that those appointed before and after 31.07.2015 constitute the same class and that no intelligible differentia exists between these two sets of candidates, is also misconceived. This argument could have held water, if the benefit of the Policy dated 03.10.2015 had been conferred upon all persons who had rendered service even for a single day before the cut-off date, namely 31.07.2015. The benefit of the Policy is ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP
- 17 -
extended only to those who had completed a prescribed number of years or number of hours of service.
.
31. If the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is accepted, then even pension is payable to a person who had not completed qualifying years of service. As pointed out earlier, the persons who benefitted from the Policy, had come to Court complaining that they had rendered long service and that they had become ineligible to appear in any competitive examination for recruitment to public services.
r It was this grievance that made them to form a separate class than those appointed after 31.07.2015.
32. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & others Vs. State of Jharkhand & others [(2018) 8 SCC 238]. In the said case, the Supreme Court explained the object and intent of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi (3) & others, [(2006) 4 SCC 1], to be two fold, namely
(i) to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and (ii) to confer a benefit upon those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. After so explaining, the purpose and the intent of the decision in Uma Devi, the Court recorded a factual finding in Narendra Kumar Tiwari that the State of Jharkhand continued with ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP
- 18 -
irregular appointments for almost a decade even after the decision in Uma Devi. Therefore, it was a case of exploitation.
.
33. In the case, on hand, the writ petitions cannot, by any stroke of imagination, complain of exploitation. They were appointed on contract basis during the period between 31.07.2015 and 03.10.2015. Even at the time of the second renewal of the contract, the Government woke up and issued Annexure P-8, dated 23.08.2018 not to continue to engage their services.
34. If seen in the light of the above, it will be clear that the letter dated 23.08.2018 issued by the Government, is an attempt to stop the exploitation of the petitioners. By seeking to set aside the said communication, the petitioners want the Government to subject them to exploitation, so that they can have the benefit of the judgment in Narendra Kumar Tiwari. Therefore, the decision in Narendra Kumar Tiwari, rendered in completely different set of circumstances, cannot go the rescue of the writ petitioners.
35. As pointed out earlier, the Policy dated 03.10.2015 was intended to be an 'One Time Measure', that was brought forth pursuant to a judgment of this Court. The Supreme Court noted in Narendra Kumar Tiwari that the concept of an 'One time Measure' was also explained in State of Karnataka & others Vs. M.L. Kesari & others, [ (2010) 9 SCC 247]. The decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi itself provided for an 'One time ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP
- 19 -
Measure'. Therefore, what was prescribed as an 'One Time Measure' for existing exploited employees cannot be converted into .
an 'All time Measure' by future appointees by exploiting the policy itself. Hence, the second ground of attack of the petitioners to the impugned action of the Government is also unsustainable.
36. The third contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners herein as well as the beneficiaries of the Policy dated 03.10.2015 were selected for appointment, in accordance with the same set of procedure; they were appointed by the same Authority; their appointments were approved by identical Selection Committees; they were recruited through a process of selection comprising of written test and interview; they were selected from the open market through newspapers advertisements and their conditions of service were also similar and hence, no artificial discrimination can be made between these two classes of servants. In fact, the petitioners have given a tabulation indicating that they were also appointed by following the same process of selection and that they had competed with other candidates to be selected for appointment.
37. But the above argument over-looks the fact that the petitioners were not recruited in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The very advertisements, pursuant to which the petitioners were selected ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP
- 20 -
and appointed, were for appointments on contract basis for a period of one year. These advertisements inviting applications for .
appointment on contract basis for one year would not have certainly attracted more meritorious candidates. It is not the case of the petitioners that their selection was in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
Therefore, they cannot contend that they were recruited by the same procedure, as prescribed for regular employees.
38. Inviting our attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in Nihal Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others, [(2013) 14 SCC 65], it was contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the appointments of the petitioners cannot be categorized as irregular appointments and that once a procedure of selection had been followed, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of the Policy.
39. But, we must remember that the decision in Nihal Singh arose under extraordinary circumstances. There was a large-
scale disturbance in the State of Punjab in 1980s. Since, the State was not in a position to handle the law and order situation with the available police personnel, they resorted to Section 17 of the Police Act, 1861, for appointing Special Police Officers. These Special Police Officers were assigned the duty of providing security to the banks and the financial burden was borne by the banks.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP- 21 -
40. The Supreme Court specifically found in Nihal Singh that the initial appointment of the appellants therein, was made in .
accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 17 of the Police Act, 1861.
41. In any case, the appellants before the Supreme Court in Nihal Singh were also those who had rendered a long period of service before they laid a claim for regularization. Therefore, the petitioners cannot rely upon the said decision.
42. rThe last contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is based upon the theory of legitimate expectation.
We do not know how, even at the threshold of their appointment on contract basis, the petitioners could have gained a legitimate expectation. If the petitioners had expected that the Government would never resort to appointments in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and if the petitioners had expected that every appointment will be made only through the back door giving rise to a claim for regularization, then such an expectation would not fall under the category of legitimate expectation. The Policy introduced by way of an 'One Time Measure', it must be remembered, was an exception to the rule.
One can have a legitimate expectation that the Government would follow the rules. One cannot have a legitimate expectation that the Government would continue to flout the rules, leading to the ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP
- 22 -
conferment of a benefit upon some individuals. Therefore, the last contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the .
petitioners is also liable to be rejected.
43. Relying upon certain observations made by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, as he then was, in Som Prakash Rekhi Vs. Union of India and another, (AIR 1981 SC 212) the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the State is obliged to promote economic justice by acting as a model employer. We have no doubt in our mind that it is so. It is only because the State is supposed to be a model employer that they are obliged to make appointments to public services, only in accordance with the Statutory Rules. It must be remembered that all appointments made otherwise than in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, strike at the very root of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. At the outset, an appointment sought to be made on contract basis for a period of one year, does not attract the most meritorious. Secondly, the appointments on contract basis may not strictly follow the rule of reservation, which is the bedrock of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, this Court cannot be a party to the conversion of an 'One time Measure' issued by the Government, that too, at the instance of this Court, in to a permanent measure.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP- 23 -
44. In view of the above, we find no merits in the writ petitions. Hence, they are dismissed alongwith pending .
application(s), if any.
(V. Ramasubramanian) Chief Justice.
July 10, 2019 (Anoop Chitkara)
(hemlata) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:38:31 :::HCHP