Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v) In absence of rules/guidelines/statute, teacher can be appointed only on contract or temporary basis so as to WA No. 46 of 2021 with Page 16 enable the university to run in the beginning and to make regular appointment after finalization of the rules. The contract appointment of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was made dehors rule just to make the university functional at the beginning. The judgment of the Ld. Single Judge was not in consonance with the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in regard to regularization of contract appointment and also against the settled law regarding seniority between the direct recruitment in accordance with law and contract appointees appointed dehors rules and regularized subsequently.

[20] Mr. BP. Sahu, learned senior counsel for the appellants, has pointed out that the Ld. Single Judge has misapplied the ratio of the Arjun Singh & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported as (2015) 5 SCC 713. In that case, the State Government made requisition to the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission for regular appointment. However, the Public Service Commission wrongly issued an advertisement for appointment of contract basis and in the circumstances, as sanctioned and regular posts were available and the requisition being for regular appointment, it was wrongly advertised as contractual post. Accordingly, the Court converted the contract appointment as regular appointment, since regular post was available and the requisition was for appointment of the regular post. It is pointed out that in the case in hand, there was no regular post and contract appointment of Assistant Professors and Associate Professors in MTU was resorted to for the purpose of initiation of class at the initial stage of the establishment of the new university. The regular posts were created later on and the mode of recruitment is also different. It is urged that the ratio of Arjun Singh case (supra) was wrongly applied in the present case, where there were no regular WA No. 46 of 2021 with Page 18 posts and no requisition for regular appointment. The appointment, from the very beginning, was meant for contract for a short period till the appointment of the regular faculty.

[21] Mr. BP. Sahu, learned senior counsel, has also pointed out that the Ld. Single Judge has not considered the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of State of Maharastra & Ors. vs. Anita & Ors. reported as (2016) 8 SCC 293 where it was held and observed that when the Government had taken a policy decision to fill up the post on contractual basis, the tribunal and High Court ought not to have interfered with it to hold the appointments were meant permanent in nature. In the case in hand, the MTU resorted to contract appointment of Assistant Professors and other employees for starting class at the very early stage as a stop gap arrangement and till the appointment of regular faculty members and other staff. The terms of contract especially mentioned for a period of six months and the employees could not claim regularization. It is submitted that the MTU never meant the contract appointment to be considered for regularizations and the Ld. Single Judge was wrong in directing regularizations of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 who were appointed as Assistant Professors on contract basis from the date of their initial appointment. It is emphasised that regularization of the contract appointment within a period of two years cannot be resorted to in terms of the decision in Uma Devi case (supra) cited above, not to speak regularization from the initial date of contractual appointment. [22] Mr. BP. Sahu, learned senior counsel for the appellants, also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. District Bar Association, Bandipora reported as (2017) 3 SCC 410, para 11, 12 & 17 which bars regularization of the person appointed on daily wages and contractual basis without following due process and the decision was based on the decision of the constitution bench in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Regarding the locus, it is urged that the petitioners are very much aggrieved by the retrospective regularization of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by the directions of the Ld. Single Judge in the impugned Judgment dated 20.09.2018. By this retrospective regularization order issued in the year 2020, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have been given seniority upon the WA No. 46 of 2021 with Page 19 appellants who were regularly appointed in the year 2018 after fulfilling all the requirements and in terms of the Act and applicable rules. It is pointed out that the writ appellants challenged the Agenda No. 7(iii) with respect to the decision of the Board of Management for regularization of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 along with others. However, the Ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 344 of 2020 filed by the appellants herein on the ground that the main and substantive order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in WP(C) No. 519 of 2018, attained finality after the dismissal of the review petition filed by the MTU. It was held that without challenging the substantive order, the decision of the Board which is in compliance of the direction in the order dated 20.09.2018, cannot be challenged. In the circumstances, the present appellants chose to file the present writ appeal with a leave to file third-party appeal. Since the leave has already been granted by order dated 06.05.2024 in MC[WA] No. 76 of 2021, the question of locus does not survive at this stage, as the leave was granted by the Division Bench of this Court being satisfied that the appellants are aggrieved parties. In this regard, learned senior counsel for the appellants refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Jayaraj vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala reported as (2007) 7 SCC 552. [23] Mr. BP. Sahu, learned senior counsel for the appellants, further relies on the following case laws:

[31] Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned senior counsel, submits that the writ petition/appeal is not maintainable on the assumption of perceived and imaginary injury at the future point of time. It is pointed out that consideration for appointment as Head of Department, Dean and other posts has no nexus with the regularization of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The appointments to the higher post are to be considered as per the relevant rules. On merit, it is submitted that there are two types of contract appointments (i) without following due process of rules and (ii) by following all the requisite procedures. It is pointed out that in Manipur Technical University Act, 2016, Section 9 stipulates that the university is strictly to adhere to the rules and regulations, norms and standards, procedures and guidelines, etc. of the AICTE in respect of establishment and maintenance and others, such rules and regulations, guidelines of UGC from time to time. It is pointed out that AICTE guidelines prescribe that minimum 80% of the faculty should be regular full time and the remanent may be adjunct faculty resource person from university. It is pointed out that vide order dated 15.06.2016, for MTU 50 number of regular posts of teaching faculty including 30 posts of Assistant Professors, 16 posts of Associate Professors and 4 posts of Professors were created along with non- teaching posts including the posts of Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, Controller of Examination, etc. WA No. 46 of 2021 with Page 26 [32] Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned senior counsel, has pointed out that 80% of 30 posts turns out to be 24 posts. It is pointed out that 30 posts of Assistant Professors created vide order dated 15.06.2020 and as per AICTE norms 80%, i.e., 24 posts are to be filled up on regular basis and the remaining 20%, i.e., 6 (six) posts can be appointed on contract basis. The initial appointment of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 along with another is as per the AICTE norms of 20% appointments on contract basis against the sanctioned 30 posts of Assistant Professors in MTU. It is also pointed out that the initial appointment of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was against the sanctioned posts created on 15.06.2020 and respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and another were appointed against 6 (six) posts earmarked for appointment on contract basis in terms of the AICTE norms vide various orders issued by MTU in the year 2016 in order to facilitate to start the classes in the initial stage. Since the rule was not framed at that time, the university made an arrangement of following the applicable guidelines and the advertisement for contract appointment was widely published in newspapers and electronic media and the appointment on the basis of the interview along with consideration of the academic and other qualifications of the candidates applied for. It is pointed out that the procedure adopted in the appointment of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on contract basis and that of the appointment on the appellants herein on regular basis are similar. [33] Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned senior counsel, has referred to the notification dated 23.05.2018 issued by the MTU calling for appointment of 30 faculty members on regular basis specifying that the mode of selection will be interview. It is submitted that the substantial procedural for appointment of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on contract basis in the year 2016 and the process for appointment of appellants on regular basis in the year 2018 are similar, i.e., both are on the basis of interview. It is further submitted that the appointment of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is through open advertisement by conducting of the selection procedure by an expert body. On the recommendation by the selection committee, the contract appointment of the private respondents was made upon after following due process. Even if the posts were created, the regular appointment could not be made in absence of the codified rules. However, the appointment made in 2016 in terms of the MTU Ordinance, 2016 WA No. 46 of 2021 with Page 27 on contract basis, has all the trappings of the regular appointment. Anything done under the Ordinance has been protected by Section 54 of MTU Act. [34] Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned senior counsel, relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayantilal Baghela reported as (2006) 2 SCC 482 para 12, that any regular appointment made on the post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement and inviting application from the eligible candidate and without holding proper selection would violate the principle guarantee under Article 16 of the Constitution. It is submitted that in the case in hand, all the procedures of a regular appointment have been followed and such contract appointment of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is only in the name, but in essence, the same is a regular appointment and there is no illegality in directing appointment of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on regular basis from the date of their initial appointment on contract.