Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Contract appointees are not entitled for absorption or regularization for the reasons that public post are filled up in various kinds of appointments viz. direct recruitment, promotion, contract appointment, ad hoc appointment or casual employment.

Having regard to the nature of contract appointment, it is a tenure appointment. For the purpose of regularization against permanent post, the employer has to adhere to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution read Rules of recruitment under with Article 309 of the Constitution. If there are Rules of recruitment governing the post under Article 309 of the Constitution, in that event, the employer has to take note of relevant rules or executive instructions or executive orders issued under Article 166 of the Constitution. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Patna High Court L.P.A No.211 of 2021 dt.16-04-2025 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 elaborately considered that contract appointees are not entitled for absorption or regularization.

15. The Supreme Court has authoritatively ruled that the Tribunal and Courts cannot give directions to the department/Government Institution or Organizations to regularise services of an employee. Such a direction and implementation of the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. When the petitioner was appointed on contract basis to the post of a Lecturer in the year 2003, the advertisement, as well as, appointment order made clear that selection and appointment was on contract basis. The contract appointment cannot be converted into regular appointment on the sole ground that the petitioner has continued for more than a decade. Had the respondents notified the selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer for 'regular recruitment', large scale candidates who were eligible and/or already working elsewhere on contract basis would be denied to compete for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor. In other words, each and every eligible candidate must know the nature of public appointment. This Court cannot give direction to regularise petitioner's services by way of writ of mandamus, since the petitioner has not pointed out under which statutory rules she has got right to seek regularisation. Unless right is vested in a person, Court Patna High Court L.P.A No.211 of 2021 dt.16-04-2025 cannot issue writ of mandamus to the respondents. Mandamus can be issued against a public authority only on its failure to perform mandatory legal duty. If there is no such failure, manda??? would not be issued. The Supreme Court in the case of Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana, (1977) 1 SCC 486 held as follows:--

27. No doubt the learned Single Judge has rejected the appellants' litigation on different ground that the appellants do not fulfill certain conditions relating to cut-off date. The learned Single Judge has also not taken note of Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 309 and 166 of the Constitution in respect of filling up of public post. Contract appointment is one of the mode of appointment and it is a tenure appointment. By virtue of contract appointment, contract appointee cannot have any vested or legal right to claim over the post on permanent basis unless and until he is subjected to regular recruitment process by means of Patna High Court L.P.A No.211 of 2021 dt.16-04-2025 advertisement for the regular post and also providing ample opportunity to such of those similarly situated persons who are not appointed on contract basis. In other words, open competition is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of adhering to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Appellants grievance for their regularization is that their initial appointment on contract basis was after following due procedure like inviting applications.

Due to administrative or financial exigency, official respondents might have resorted to contract appointment. Such contract appointees cannot be made permanent or regularized as it would violate Articles 14, 16 and 309 read with executive orders, instructions issued under Article 166 of the Constitution, for the reason that another contract appointee in yet any other organization as on that date, did not submit his application apparently for the reason that he was already on contract appointment with some other organization. If the official respondents had notified that contract appointment is followed by regularization, in such an event, those contract employees who are working elsewhere would have opted for Accountant or any other post in the official respondent agency. Thus, if the appellants' contract appointment is followed by regularization, in such an event, that would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 and so also Patna High Court L.P.A No.211 of 2021 dt.16-04-2025 misleading such of those contract appointees other than working in Agency like appellants to the extent that contract appointment is followed by regularization. For public post, mode of recruitment should be in accordance with the Constitutional provision in particularly, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Time and again, Supreme Court after decision in Umadevi's (3) case and in subsequent decisions have clearly held that public posts are required to be filled up after duly following the Constitutional provision read with relevant Rules of Recruitment. Therefore, appellants grievance relating to regularization read with the cited decisions are hereby distinguished in view of the Constitution bench decisions. In the light of these facts and circumstances, appellants have not made out a case so as to seek regularization with reference to their initial appointment on contract basis.