Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3575 (MAD)

K. Rajendran v. Union of India

2012-08-14

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Since, the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. It has been stated that the petitioners in the above writ petitions have filed the present writ petitions, before this Court, being aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, dated 8.2.2011. 3. It has been stated that the petitioners had been appointed in the various posts in the Sardar Vallabhai Patel International School of Textiles and Management, Coimbatore, during the year 2003-04, on consolidated pay. Thereafter, they had been brought on time scale of pay in the year, 2008, with effect from 1.8.2008. The relevant service details of the petitioners are as follows: 4. It has been further stated that the respondent School had been started for admitting students and for conferring degrees in M.B.A. in Textiles and Post Graduate Diploma in Textiles. It has been started, by the Government of India, as an autonomous body, for imparting education to students specilising in Textiles Management. Apart from the teaching staff, sanctioned non-teaching posts were also created for running the said School. 5. It has been further stated that the petitioners, who had been in service, in their various posts, had received a communication, dated 8.2.2011, issued by the second respondent, bringing the non-teaching posts on a contract basis, for a period of three years, commencing from 1.8.2008, renewable by mutual consent. As such, the second respondent, by his communication, dated 8.2.2011, has attempted to terminate the service of the petitioners, who have been working on a time scale of pay, unilaterally. In such circumstances, the petitioners had preferred the present writ petitions, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that the petitioners are contractual employees of the Sardar Vallabhai Patel International School of Textiles and Management, Coimbatore, which is a Society registered, on 24.12.2002, under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It is neither a Government of India organization, nor a Central Autonomous Body set up under an Act of the Parliament. The said Institute had been set up, as a Public Private Venture, to provide comprehensive education, training, consultancy and research in textile management. It is neither a Government of India organization, nor a Central Autonomous Body set up under an Act of the Parliament. The said Institute had been set up, as a Public Private Venture, to provide comprehensive education, training, consultancy and research in textile management. The Government of India had only facilitated in setting up of the Institute, at the initial stage, through grants. There is no permanent obligation on the part of the Government of India to support the Institute, financially. 7. It has also been stated that there is a Board of Governors, which is the apex body for managing the affairs of the Institute. The Board of Governors consists of a Chairman and 19 members and a full time Director. Further, all the academic and non-academic posts are filled up, only on contract basis. Only two staff members, who were previously working in the national textiles NTC Staff College and who were given an option to continue in the Institute, had been absorbed in the respondent School, on a permanent basis. 8. The procedures contemplated for the recruitment of the teaching and the non-teaching staff had not been followed, while selecting and appointing the petitioners, on contract basis. Therefore, their appointments in their respective posts cannot be held to be regular appointments. 9. It has been further stated that the Board, in its 15th meeting, held in the month of July, 2008, had taken a humanitarian view, as the non-academic contractual employees were being paid a low salary and therefore, they had to be given time scales of pay, along with certain other benefits. However, they were continued in their respective posts, only on contractual basis. As such, the writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, are not maintainable before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the claims made by the petitioners are devoid of merits and therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, the various averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent had been reiterated. 11. It has been further stated that the appointment of the petitioners had not been made by following the normal recruitment procedures, as per the Service Rules of the Sardar Vallabhai Patel International School of Textiles and Management, Coimbatore. 11. It has been further stated that the appointment of the petitioners had not been made by following the normal recruitment procedures, as per the Service Rules of the Sardar Vallabhai Patel International School of Textiles and Management, Coimbatore. The names of the petitioners had not been sponsored by the employment exchange, nor were they appointed based on the notification issued in the newspapers. Interviews had not been conducted by the selection committee, which is authorised to select the candidates for being appointed in the various posts of the said Institute. 12. It had been further stated that the Board of Governors had accorded approval only for the purpose of placing the contract staff on a time scale of pay, in view of the fact that they were receiving only a meagre salary. However, they had been continued, only on contractual basis, contrary to the claims made by the petitioners that they had been appointed, regularly, on a permanent basis, in the sanctioned posts. 13. In such circumstances, it is not appropriate on the part of the petitioners to claim that the impugned order, dated 8.2.2011, is arbitrary and invalid in the eye of law. In fact, the petitioners had been appointed only for a limited period of time and thereafter, they had been extended in service by subsequent orders, continuing them in their respective posts, on contractual basis. 14. The main contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that when the appointments of the petitioners had been made on a regular basis on time scale of pay, their services cannot be changed, by the second respondent, as contractual appointments, unilaterally. 15. It had also been submitted that, when the Board of Governors is the appointing authority and the departmental selection committee is the selecting body, the second respondent does not have the jurisdiction or the authority to pass the impugned order, changing the nature of the service of the petitioners. 16. It had also been pointed, by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the minutes of the 15th meeting of the Board of Governors, held on 21.7.2008, had been referred to in the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 8.2.2011. 16. It had also been pointed, by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the minutes of the 15th meeting of the Board of Governors, held on 21.7.2008, had been referred to in the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 8.2.2011. Thus, it is clear that the Board of Governors of the respondent institute had recognized the services of the petitioners to be on regular basis, while deciding to grant them time scale of pay. While so, it would not be open to the second respondent to state, by his impugned order, dated 8.2.2011, that the petitioners are on ad hoc, temporary or contractual basis. In fact, no appointment orders had been issued to the petitioners, at the time of their appointments, stating that their services are of contractual nature. All the petitioners had been appointed in the sanctioned posts and therefore, they have a right to the posts in which they had been appointed. 17. The learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT LTD., AND ANOTHER Vs. BROJO NATH GANGULY AND ANOTHER (AIR 1986 SCC 1571 (1), to state that the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. Service Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1979, which empowers the Corporation to terminate the service of the permanent employees, without giving any reasons and without giving any notice would be void, as per Section 23 of the Contract Act, as such, Rules are opposed to public policy. 18. The learned senior counsel had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. MAZDOOR CONGRESS AND OTHERS ( AIR 1991 SC 101 (1) wherein, it had been held that the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations 1952, authorising the removal of permanent employees from service, without assigning any reason, were arbitrary, unfair, unjust, unreasonable and opposed to public policy. As per the said decisions, the impugned orders passed by the respondents would be arbitrary illegal and void. 19. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioners had been appointed in their various posts, in the respondent institute, only on contractual basis. They had no rights to their posts, as claimed by them. 19. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioners had been appointed in their various posts, in the respondent institute, only on contractual basis. They had no rights to their posts, as claimed by them. The Board of Governors of the respondent institute, in its 15th meeting held in the month of July, 2008, had decided to grant time scale of pay to the petitioners, only on compassionate grounds. There was no resolution passed or decision taken in the said Board Meeting to confer permanent status, in respect of the service of the petitioners. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to claim that their services are of permanent nature and therefore, the impugned order, dated 8.2.2011, issued by the respondents, is arbitrary and illegal. 20. The learned counsels had further stated that the Rules of recruitment prescribed in the service Rules of the Sardar Vallabhai Patel International School of Textiles and Management, Coimbatore, had not been followed in selecting and appointing the petitioners in their respective posts. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioners that their appointments are of permanent nature and that they are entitled to receive the salaries on time scale of pay, with all other attendant benefits, cannot be accepted. As the claims made by the petitioners are devoid of merits, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in PRINCIPAL, MEHAR CHAND POLYTECHNIC Vs. ANU LAMBA (2007) 1 MLJ 17 (SC) wherein, it had been held that a person appointed temporarily in a post, without compliance with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, gets no legal right to be absorbed in the post. Such a person is not entitled to claim regularisation of his service. 22. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on their behalf, and on a perusal of the records available and in considering the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are devoid of merits. 23. 23. The petitioners are not in a position to produce the orders of appointment, by which they had been appointed in their various posts in the respondent institute. Further, nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioners, by way of evidence, to substantiate their claims that their appointments had been made on permanent basis. 24. On the contrary, the respondents had been in a position to show that the appointment of the petitioners were only on a contractual basis, extended from time, to time, by subsequent orders. It is also noted that the appointments of the petitioners had not been made by following the procedures contemplated by the service Rules applicable to the respondent School. 25. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had been given consolidated pay at the time of their initial appointments. Only thereafter, they had been given time scale of pay, pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting of the Board of Governors of the respondent School, held in the month of July, 2008. However, no decision had been taken in the said meeting to regularise the services of the petitioners in their respective posts, on a permanent basis. As such, it is clear that the petitioners had been appointed only on contractual basis, on consolidated pay, and their services continue to be so even after they had been given time scale of pay, based on the decision of the Board of Governors of the respondent School. 26. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners had been appointed in the respective posts without following the normal Rules of Recruitment, as provided under the Service Rules applicable to such recruitment. The decisions, relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, cannot be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present writ petitions, as they had been rendered based on different facts and circumstances. As such, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. As the writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, are devoid of merits, they are liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011, M.P.No.1 of 2012, M.P.No.2 of 2011, M.P.No.2 of 2011 M.P.No.1 of 2012, and M.P.No.2 of 2012 are closed.