Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1028 (PAT)

Amar Nath Pandey v. State Of Bihar

2001-11-11

NAGENDRA RAI, P.N.YADAV

body2001
Judgment 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the orders, of the learned Single Judge dated 18.4.2001 and 26.6.2001, whereby the writ applications filed by them for a direction to quash the order dated 7.2.2001, issued under the signature of the Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, Patna, terminating their services with effect from 1.3.2001 and for issuance of other directions consequential to the quashing of the said order, have been dismissed. 2. The factual matrix necessary for disposal of the present appeals lie in a very narrow compass. Under the scheme of the World Bank, a Project, namely, Strengthening of Polytechnic Education Project was initiated in the year 1990-91 for strengthening technical education in the State of Bihar. In pursuance of an agreement reached between the World Bank and the Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, a Committee was constituted by the State Government for implementation of the Project but no progress was made between the year 1990-92. The State Government later on constituted a Committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to take steps to strengthen the Polytechnic Education Project. The Committee took a number of decisions including the proposal for creation of 880 posts for the said purpose. On 1.7.1992, a decision was taken that the posts would be filled up on contract basis instead of going for regular appointment as the regular appointment would cause heavy expenditure to the State Government after the period of contract was over. A decision was further taken to make appointment on contract basis for a period of three years by open advertisement or after obtaining names from the Employment Exchange through the Selection Committee according to the rules of the State Government. A copy of the said decision was apper.Jed as Annexure 1 to C.W.J.C. No. 2844/2000. In the meantime, it appears that the State Government decided to fill up certain class of posts, namely, Class I to Class IV posts created under the aforesaid Scheme through the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short the Commission) on contract basis. The Commission declined to accept the request of the State Government on the ground of there being no provision for making appointment by the Commission on contract basis. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued. The appellants and others applied pursuant to the same. The Commission declined to accept the request of the State Government on the ground of there being no provision for making appointment by the Commission on contract basis. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued. The appellants and others applied pursuant to the same. On selection, 388 persons, including the appellants were appointed on contract basis, out of them 57 were appointed against Class II posts, 154 against Class III posts, 144 against Class IV posts and 36 posts were filled up by bringing the officers from other departments. The letter of appointment provides that the appointment has been made on contract basis on a consolidated monthly emolument for a period of one year extendable for a further period of up to two years on yearly basis dependent on the performance of the employees as assessed by the employer. The Project ended on 26.2.1999. Thereafter, a proposal was submitted for the extension of the scheme for the year 1999-2000. 3. The question of allowing the employees to continue up to 2000 was also under consideration and the matter was considered by the Advocate General of the State, who opined that they should be allowed to continue till 28.2.2000 and, thereafter, no extension should be given to them as they were engaged on contract basis. However, no final decision was taken and the matter remained pending at the level of the Minister, Science and Technology and the matter was again reexamined and ultimately the Government took a decision that in no case extension should be given to the appellants and other similarly situated employees on contract basis after 28.2.2000 and, thereafter, the impugned order was passed terminating their contractual appointment/engagement with effect from 1.3.2001. The appellants and others aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed ten writ applications, which were dismissed by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, against which they filed the present appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as the appellants have continued for more than five years their services should be regularised or in alternative till arrangements are made for running the Polytechnic institutes by providing different classes of employees, including the teaching employees they should be allowed to continue. 5. The said two points were submitted before the learned Single Judge and, in our view, he has rightly negatived both of them. 5. The said two points were submitted before the learned Single Judge and, in our view, he has rightly negatived both of them. When the appointment is made on contract basis for a particular period then after the period is over the contract comes to an end and there is no question of regularisation in such a case. This question is no longer res integra and has been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. vs. Pushpa Srivastava, reported in (1992) 4 S.C.C. 33 as well as in the case of Council of Scientific & Industrial Research vs. Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain, reported in (2000) 4 S.C.C. 186 . 6. In that view of the matter, the order of termination/disengagement of the appellants on the expiry of the period of contract cannot be faulted on any legal and valid ground. 7. So far as the other grievance made on behalf of the appellants that once they are out of the office, the Polytechnic education in Bihar would suffer for non-availability of teaching and non-teaching staff is concerned, it is stated that the learned Single Judge directed the State to file an affidavit and a detailed affidavit was filed on behalf of the State, wherein a clear statement was made, which has been accepted by the learned Single Judge, that the employees, including the teaching staff have been transferred from other Polytechnic Institutions on need based in the institutions in question and the work in the said institution will not suffer for want of employees, including teaching employees. 8. In view of the aforesaid statement, now, the other grievance of the appellants is not worth-acceptance. However, it is made clear that if in future the State Government decides to engage persons either on contract basis or makes a regular appointment to fill up the posts under any categories i.e. Class I to Class IV in the Polytechnic Institutions, in. that case the appellants cases should be considered and they should be given weightage of their experience for the period they have worked and they should also be given age relaxation to the extent of the services rendered by them on contract basis. 9. In the result, there is no merit in these appeals and, accordingly, they are dismissed.