Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vikram Singh vs The Managing Director on 24 September, 2019
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1364 of 2017 .
Reserved on: 18.09.2019
Date of decision: 24.09.2019
Vikram Singh ...Petitioner.
Versus
The Managing Director, H.P. Tourism Development Corporation and another. ..Respondents.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. V. D. Khidtta, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, Advocate.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Reference Petition by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Shimla, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the grant of following relief:
"(i)That writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and the impugned award dated 28.04.2017 (Annexure P-3) may kindly be quashed and set-aside. Further the claim filed 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:30:53 :::HCHP 2 by the petitioner may kindly be allowed termination of the petitioner may kindly held illegal and petitioner may kindly .
be ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including back wages."
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was purely appointed on contract basis by the respondents w.e.f. 4.5.2012 - 31.7.2012, thereafter on 10.9.2012 - 31.12.2012 and lastly w.e.f. 20.4.2013 to 15.7.2013.
3. to Now, the moot question is whether the appointment limited by contract can confer any right to the post after the expiry of the time and limit of the contract.
4. The issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and another vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991 (1) SCC 691 and Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appointment limited by time does not confer any right to the post and on expiry of time limit, the appointment ceased automatically and the person holding such post can have no right to continue in such post.
5. In State of Haryana vs. Surinder Kumar and others (1997) 3 SCC 633, the respondents therein were appointed as Clerks ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:30:53 :::HCHP 3 on contract basis. They filed a writ petition in the High Court for their regularisation, which was allowed and direction was issued for .
payment of wages on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and also regularisation of their services. In appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court holding that as the respondents recruitment was not made in accordance with the Rules and they were appointed on contract basis on daily wages, they
6.
r to cannot have any right to a post as such until they are duly selected and appointed.
This decision in turn was followed by Hon'ble three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 SCC 321 and it was held that where a person is employed under a contract, it is the contract which will govern the terms and conditions of service and not the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India governing condition of service to the post on which he is employed. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner did not have any right to continue after expiry of his term for which he had been appointed.
7. Similar issue has been considered in detail by me in a recent judgment bearing CWP No. 2680 of 2015, titled Kunal Brahma vs. The Board of Trustees of IRMT & others, decided on ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:30:53 :::HCHP 4 09.07.2019, the petitioner therein was appointed as Administrator with the respondents trust purely on contract basis and thereafter his .
services were ordered to be terminated. It was then the petitioner approached this Court complaining that the termination of his services was illegal, violative of the principles of the Constitution of India, more particularly, Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21. While rejecting the said contention, this Court observed as under:-
7. A careful reading of the letter of appointment leaves no manner of doubt that the appointment offered to the petitioner was a limited one. The respondents at the given time had never offered to the petitioner that he would continue in service or that his services would be regularized. It is not even the case of the petitioner that there was any uncertainty or ambiguity in the appointment made by the respondents as to the tenure on the post on which he had been appointed.
8. There is a clear distinction between public employment governed by the statutory rules and private employment governed purely by contract. No doubt with the development of law, there has been a paradigm shift with regard to judicial review of administrative action whereby the writ court can examine the validity of termination order passed by the public authority and it is no longer open to the authority passing the order to argue that the action in the realm of contract is not open to judicial review.
However, the scope of interference of judicial review is ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:30:53 :::HCHP 5 confined and limited in its scope. The writ court is entitled to judicially review the action and determine whether there was any illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, .
unfairness or irrationality that would vitiate the action, no matter the action is in the realm of contract.
9. However, judicial review cannot extend to the Court acting as an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the decision. The Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the administrator to decide whether more reasonable decision or course of action could have been taken in the circumstances. (Refer Gridco Ltd. & Another vs. Sadananda Doloi & Ors, AIR 2012 SC 729).
10. The petitioner has failed to place before this Court any material to show that the action of the respondents is either unreasonable or unfair or perverse or irrational. As observed earlier, the service conditions of the petitioner makes it abundantly clear that petitioner had been appointed on contractual basis, that too, on a non-
statutory scheme.
11. It may be noticed that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted the appointment granted to him subject to the conditions clearly stipulated in the scheme. The appointment subject to the conditions has been accepted with his eyes wide open, therefore, now the petitioner cannot turn around claiming higher rights ignoring the conditions subject to which the appointment had been accepted.
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:30:53 :::HCHP 68. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending .
application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
24th September , 2019 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
(GR) Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:30:53 :::HCHP