Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 343 (PNJ)

Sarbjeet Singh v. Union Of India

2021-02-10

SANJAY KUMAR

body2021
JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar, J. - Pertaining to the same issues, these eight writ petitions are amenable to final disposal by way of this common order. 2. The Government of India set up 06 new Indian Institutes of Management in the year 2015. One of them was at Amritsar. These Institutes were to start their academic sessions from 2015-16. The existing Indian Institutes of Management at Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Calcutta, Lucknow, Indore and Kozhikode were to mentor the six new Institutes. The Indian Institute of Management (IIM) at Amritsar was to be mentored by IIM, Kozhikode. A meeting was held on 31.03.2015 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Higher Education, Government of India, with the Directors of the mentor IIMs of the proposed Institutes and several decisions were taken as to land allotment for the temporary campuses of the new IIMs, shifting of the said IIMs to permanent campuses, costing for infrastructure, the role to be played by the mentoring IIMs, the student strength for the 1st year courses in the new IIMs, etc. Such unanimous decisions were recorded in Clause 6 of the Minutes of that meeting. Clause 6(i) stated that all the new IIMs should start their current academic sessions (2015-16) by admitting students for Post Graduate Diploma Programs by July, 2015 and latest by August, 2015. Clauses 6(ii) and (iii) dealt with aspects relating to expenditure while Clause 6(iv) stated that till such time administrative professionals were appointed by the new IIMs, the mentoring IIMs may engage such professionals on contract basis. Clause 6(v) is of particular relevance and it reads as under:- 'v) The Mentor Institutes may also hire/engage/appoint faculties following the due process on temporary basis. Later after the registration of the Societies of the new IIMs the critical faculty and staff hired/engaged/appointed may be adjusted against sanctioned posts (to be) of the new IIMs.' 3. The Society of the IIM, Amritsar, was registered on 27.08.2015. However, Advertisements were issued even after this event through the aegis of the mentoring IIM, Kozhikode, on different dates for making selection and appointment to various posts. The petitioners in these cases were recruited on temporary basis on contract after such process. 4. Sarbjeet Singh, the petitioner in CWP-37643-2018, was appointed as a Junior Multi-tasking Assistant pursuant to the Advertisement dated 23.08.2016. The petitioners in these cases were recruited on temporary basis on contract after such process. 4. Sarbjeet Singh, the petitioner in CWP-37643-2018, was appointed as a Junior Multi-tasking Assistant pursuant to the Advertisement dated 23.08.2016. The offer of appointment made to him, vide letter dated 27.10.2016, as in the cases of the others, was through the IIM, Kozhikode, the mentoring Institute for IIM, Amritsar. He joined on 01.11.2016 and worked continuously for more than 04 years with breaks in service. He was given the benefit of the 6th & 7th Central Pay Commission recommendations with regard to Grade Pay and pay fixation. The material placed on record by him manifests that his services were utilized as a Driver. While so, the IIM, Amritsar, initiated a fresh tender process for recruiting Drivers on monthly contract basis, vide letter dated 24.06.2018. This letter reflects that the IIM, Amritsar, was of the opinion that the activities in the transit campus would increase in future and Drivers' services on monthly contract basis were required to be procured on outsourcing basis from a professional agency. The annual expenditure on account of such outsourcing was estimated at ' 24 lakh. Apprehending that his services would be discontinued, Sarabjeet Singh approached this Court by way of CWP-18722-2018. The said writ petition was disposed of on 31.07.2018, directing the IIM, Amritsar, to take a decision on his representation dated 20.01.2018, whereby he had sought regularization of his services. By order dated 05.10.2018, his request was turned down. The IIM, Amritsar, stated therein that it had never given any assurance to any of the contractual appointees that as and when a vacancy came up, they would be given an opportunity. It accordingly justified issuance of a tender for undertaking further appointments on contractual basis. Assailing the said order, Sarabjeet Singh filed the present writ petition. He also sought a direction to the IIM, Amritsar, to adjust him on regular basis against a sanctioned post in terms of the policy decision dated 31.03.2015. 5. By order dated 14.10.2019 passed in this writ petition, this Court directed status quo to be maintained with respect to Sarabjeet Singh's services. The IIM, Amritsar, filed an application to vacate the order. The admitted position, however, is that his services are not being utilized as on date and he is being asked to only mark his attendance and receive salary. 6. The IIM, Amritsar, filed an application to vacate the order. The admitted position, however, is that his services are not being utilized as on date and he is being asked to only mark his attendance and receive salary. 6. Raghu Raj, the petitioner in CWP-37756-2018, was appointed as Support Subordinate Staff/Multi-skilled Staff on contract basis on 24.08.2016 pursuant to the Advertisement dated 01.08.2016. He joined service on 01.09.2016 and undertook driving duties. He was also given the benefit of the 6th & 7th Central Pay Commission recommendations. Earlier, he had filed CWP-18780-2018 before this Court aggrieved by the process initiated by the IIM, Amritsar, vide letter dated 24.06.2018, to fill up posts of Drivers on monthly contract basis. The said writ petition was disposed of on 01.08.2018 directing the IIM, Amritsar, to pass appropriate orders upon his representation dated 20.01.2018. By order dated 05.10.2018, the IIM, Amritsar, rejected his claim on the same lines as in Sarabjeet Singh's case. By way of this writ petition, he assailed the said order and sought a direction to the IIM, Amritsar, to adjust him on regular basis against a sanctioned post as per the policy decision dated 31.03.2015. No interim relief was granted in this case. 7. Raghu Raj then filed CWP-24746-2019 assailing the order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the IIM, Amritsar, refusing to extend his contract of employment as Support Subordinate Staff. He claimed to be the senior-most amongst the 07 Drivers appointed after following the due process of selection and on the strength of an advertisement. No interim orders were passed in this case also. 8. Lalit Bhalla, the petitioner in CWP-2837-2019, was appointed as an Office Assistant on 04.04.2015 pursuant to the Advertisement dated 04.03.2015. He joined service on 13.04.2015 and worked upto 19.09.2016. He was also given an increase in salary. On 17.09.2016, he was selected and appointed as a Senior Office Assistant on contract basis pursuant to the Advertisement dated 23.08.2016. He joined as such on 20.09.2016 and was given the benefit of the 6th & 7th Central Pay Commission recommendations. He filed this writ petition seeking relief on the same lines as the earlier cases. His services were terminated on 24.09.2019 during the pendency of this writ petition. No interim orders were granted in this case. 9. He joined as such on 20.09.2016 and was given the benefit of the 6th & 7th Central Pay Commission recommendations. He filed this writ petition seeking relief on the same lines as the earlier cases. His services were terminated on 24.09.2019 during the pendency of this writ petition. No interim orders were granted in this case. 9. Munish Gaind, the petitioner in CWP-30609-2019, was appointed as Semi-skilled Staff (Attendant-cum-Peon), vide letter dated 30.09.2016, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 07.09.2016. His appointment was also purely temporary and on contract basis. He joined service on 15.10.2016 and continued thereafter for more than 04 years. He was also given the benefit of the 6th & 7th Central Pay Commission recommendations in relation to pay fixation. He filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the IIM, Amritsar, to adjust him on regular basis against the post sanctioned on 14.12.2016 on the strength of the policy decision dated 31.03.2015. The term of his contract was till 22.10.2019. 10. By order dated 22.10.2019, this Court granted him interim relief on the same terms as in CWP-37643-2018. The IIM, Amritsar, filed an application to vacate the said order. However, he is not being allowed to work and is only permitted to mark his attendance and collect salary. 11. Parvesh Bhalla, the petitioner in CWP-32613-2019, was appointed as an Office Assistant on 30.01.2018 pursuant to the Advertisement dated 09.08.2017. He joined service on 10.02.2018 and continued for about 02 years and 09 months. He was also appointed on a temporary basis on contract. The recommendations of the 6th & 7th Central Pay Commission were extended to him. He sought relief as in the earlier cases and also extension of his contract which was to expire on 10.11.2019. 12. By order dated 08.11.2019, this Court directed that status quo should be maintained qua his services. However, he is also not allowed to work and is only being permitted to mark his attendance and collect salary. 13. Resham Singh, the petitioner in CWP-34146-2019, was appointed as a Junior Multi-tasking Assistant on 12.06.2017 pursuant to the Advertisement dated 03.04.2017. His appointment was also on contract basis and he worked as a Driver for about 03 years and 05 months. He was given the benefit of the 6th & 7th Central Pay Commission recommendations. 13. Resham Singh, the petitioner in CWP-34146-2019, was appointed as a Junior Multi-tasking Assistant on 12.06.2017 pursuant to the Advertisement dated 03.04.2017. His appointment was also on contract basis and he worked as a Driver for about 03 years and 05 months. He was given the benefit of the 6th & 7th Central Pay Commission recommendations. His main prayer is on similar lines as in the other cases and also to extend his contract of employment which was to expire on 14.12.2019. 14. By order dated 26.11.2019, this Court directed that his services should not be dispensed with. The IIM, Amritsar, filed an application to vacate the said order. However, his services are admittedly not being utilized and he is only allowed to mark attendance and collect his salary. 15. Amit Gaind, the petitioner in CWP-37007-2019, was initially appointed as an Office Assistant in September, 2017. He was then selected and appointed as an Academic Assistant on 06.02.2018. His appointment was also on contract basis. He joined service as such on 10.02.2018. He was granted increase of pay on the basis of 6th & 7th Central Pay Commission recommendations. He filed this writ petition seeking adjustment on regular basis against the post sanctioned on 14.12.2016 and on the basis of the policy decision dated 31.03.2015. He also sought extension of his contract of employment which was expiring on 07.02.2020. No interim orders were granted in the writ petition and his services were terminated on 27.12.2019 during the pendency of this writ petition. 16. Plethora of case law was cited by both sides as to the legal status of contractual employment and regularization of services in general. However, this Court does not deem it necessary to refer to or set out the same as the cases on hand turn on the obtaining individual facts and more particularly, the value to be given to the Minutes dated 31.03.2015. 17. The documents placed on record demonstrate that though the Society of the IIM, Amritsar, was registered on 27.08.2015 itself, selection and appointment of the petitioners in these cases and several others was effected through the mentoring IIM at Kozhikode. 17. The documents placed on record demonstrate that though the Society of the IIM, Amritsar, was registered on 27.08.2015 itself, selection and appointment of the petitioners in these cases and several others was effected through the mentoring IIM at Kozhikode. Therefore, contrary to Clause 6(v) of the aforestated Minutes, which spoke of the hiring and engaging of faculty/staff being done by the mentoring IIM prior to registration of the Society, the mentoring IIM, Kozhikode, undertook selection and recruitment of the petitioners and others even after the registration and with the tacit consent of the Society of the IIM, Amritsar. Admittedly, the 07 petitioners in these cases were all appointed on the strength of due notification of the posts by way of advertisement and through a selection process by interviews on a competitive basis. This methodology of recruitment was devised by the mentoring IIM, Kozhikode. 18. Three of the petitioners claim to have worked as Drivers but the IIM, Amritsar, baldly denied that they did so. However, sufficient material has been placed on record in proof of their having undertaken driving duties. Notably, candidates applying for the posts of Junior Multi-tasking Assistant were required, as per the advertisements, to possess a valid driving licence for heavy and light motor vehicles. Further, the Inter-Office Note dated 26.09.2018 addressed by the Nodal Officer of the IIM, Amritsar, to the staff set out the details of the duties to be undertaken by Semi-skilled, Multi-tasking and Junior Multi-tasking Staff and driving of vehicles, if in possession of valid driving licence, is one such duty at Clause 14 thereof. It is therefore manifest that such staff were required to undertake driving duties. This disputed question of fact is therefore answered in favour of these petitioners on the strength of the admitted record. 19. The facts brought on file demonstrate that all the petitioners were appointed after due process of notification by way of advertisement in the public domain followed by selection through interviews, but the nature of such appointment was purely temporary and on contract basis. This was in keeping with Clause 6(v) of the Minutes dated 31.03.2015. 19. The facts brought on file demonstrate that all the petitioners were appointed after due process of notification by way of advertisement in the public domain followed by selection through interviews, but the nature of such appointment was purely temporary and on contract basis. This was in keeping with Clause 6(v) of the Minutes dated 31.03.2015. The discretion and liberty to regularize the services of these temporary employees was given to the new IIMs after registration of their Societies, but as already stated supra, such registration preceded the appointment of staff by the mentoring IIM at Kozhikode in so far as the IIM, Amritsar, was concerned. 20. Pertinently, the Government of India, through its Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, accorded sanction for creation of regular posts for the IIM, Amritsar, on 14.12.2016 itself, with the approval of the competent authority. As regards faculty, fifteen posts of Professor (Flexi Cadre) were sanctioned. As regards nonfaculty, the following posts were sanctioned: Chief Administrative Officer one Librarian one Finance Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer one Administrative Officer one Store and Purchase Officer one Secretary to Director one Senior Library and Info Assistant one Junior Engineer one Personal Assistant two Office Assistant two Driver (subject to sanction for purchase of vehicle) one Attendant-Peon one 21. It may also be noted that the Indian Institute of Management Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act of 2017'), was promulgated by the Parliament and came into force on 31.01.2018, vide Gazette Notification dated 11.01.2018. The preamble to the Act of 2017 states that it was promulgated to declare certain Institutes of Management to be institutes of national importance with a view to empower these institutions to attain standards of global excellence in management, management research and allied areas of knowledge and to provide for certain other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. IIM, Amritsar, is one such Institute mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Act of 2017. Section 4 of the Act of 2017 makes it clear that on and from the commencement of the Act of 2017, every such Institute is to be a body corporate by the same name and is to have perpetual succession and a common seal. Section 5(d) of the Act of 2017 is relevant for the purposes of this adjudication. It states as follows :- 'Section 5. Section 5(d) of the Act of 2017 is relevant for the purposes of this adjudication. It states as follows :- 'Section 5. On and from the commencement of this Act,- (d) every person employed by every existing Institute immediately before such commencement shall hold his office or service in the corresponding Institute, with the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund and other matters as he would have held had this Act not been enacted and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment is terminated or until such tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions are duly altered by regulations: .......' 22. Taking cover under this provision, the petitioners contend that the Minutes dated 31.03.2015 vested them with a right to be considered for regularization in service and that the same stood protected under the statute. They claim that the said Minutes recorded the unanimous decision that the temporarily hired staff may be adjusted against the 'to be sanctioned posts' and therefore, the IIM, Amritsar, could not cut short their right to be considered for such adjustment by abruptly terminating their contractual service contrary to the statute. It is in this context that they style these Minutes as a policy decision. However, the authorities contest this claim and assert that they merely reflect a recommendation and no more. 23. In this regard, it is relevant to note that, by letter dated 03.02.2020, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, informed the IIM, Amritsar, that the Minutes dated 31.03.2015 could not be treated as an order. He further stated that the Ministry's order dated 14.12.2016 for creation of posts at IIM, Amritsar, was issued prior to the Act of 2017 and once the said Act came into force, the Board of Governors of the IIM was to have the power to create academic, administrative, technical and other posts and make appointments thereto. Again, by letter dated 28.05.2020 addressed to the Senior Panel Counsel appearing before this Court for the Union of India, the same Under Secretary stated that the decision under Clause 6(v) of the Minutes dated 31.03.2015 merely empowered the mentor IIM to hire staff on contract basis and regularize them as per their requirement. Again, by letter dated 28.05.2020 addressed to the Senior Panel Counsel appearing before this Court for the Union of India, the same Under Secretary stated that the decision under Clause 6(v) of the Minutes dated 31.03.2015 merely empowered the mentor IIM to hire staff on contract basis and regularize them as per their requirement. He further stated that this was only an empowering clause and did not limit the power of the IIM to appoint its staff. He then went on to state that after the Act of 2017 came into effect, it superseded any decision taken earlier and granted autonomy to the IIMs in such matters. Thereafter, by letter dated 12.06.2020 addressed to the Additional Solicitor General appearing before this Court, the very same Under Secretary stated that after the coming into effect of the Act of 2017, the IIMs had academic and administrative autonomy, whereby creation, appointment and framing of the conditions of service for various posts became an internal matter. He further stated that the Act of 2017 superseded any decision taken earlier in such matters and granted autonomy to the IIMs. According to him, the Ministry had no role to play in the recruitment of staff in IIMs anymore and was therefore not a necessary party to these cases. 24. Based on this stand, applications were filed on behalf of the Union of India seeking deletion of its name from the array of parties. However, for reasons to be stated hereinafter, this Court finds no merit in the claim that the Union of India is not a necessary party to this litigation. 25. At this stage, it may be noted that after the Act of 2017 came into force, the IIM, Amritsar, a State instrumentality, assumed the character of a statutory body. It is therefore no less than the State when it comes to discharge of obligations under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It is in this context that the manner in which it dealt with its temporary/contractual employees assumes significance. Arbitrariness and/or discrimination, if any, in such dealings with identically situated employees would violate the sacred tenet of fair play in action enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 26. As already stated supra, the Minutes dated 31.03.2015 form the fulcrum of this litigation. Arbitrariness and/or discrimination, if any, in such dealings with identically situated employees would violate the sacred tenet of fair play in action enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 26. As already stated supra, the Minutes dated 31.03.2015 form the fulcrum of this litigation. The IIM, Amritsar, as well as the Union of India would claim that these Minutes do not embody a binding policy decision and assert that the petitioners cannot rely upon the same to claim that they have a right to be considered for regularization of their temporary services. However, it may be noted that the IIM, Amritsar, despite its vehement denials as to the value of these Minutes, did regularize the services of some of the temporary employees who were temporarily engaged on contract basis at that point of time, akin to the petitioners. 27. Pursuant to the order dated 02.12.2020 of this Court, requiring the IIM, Amritsar, to explain with supporting material the position with regard to the total sanctioned posts since the creation of the Institute in 2015 and the manner in which such posts were filled up, Shivali Rathore, Administrative Officer-cum-Nodal Officer of the Institute, filed additional affidavit dated 08.12.2020 supported by Annexures A-1 and A-2. According to her, after the Act of 2017 came into force, certain new posts were created and some earlier sanctioned posts were abolished. Annexure A-1 contained the details of the posts sanctioned and abolished. Insofar as the posts sanctioned on 14.12.2016 are concerned, Annexure A-1 shows that one post of Store & Purchaser Officer, one post of Secretary to Director, one post of Senior Library & Info Assistant, two posts of Personal Assistant, two posts of Office Assistant, one post of Driver and one post of Attendant-Peon were abolished. However, no details were furnished as to the date and mode of such abolition. The 'Remarks' column in Annexure A-1 merely stated that these posts were abolished with the approval of the competent authority. That apart, certain other posts were stated to have been sanctioned in May and October, 2020. 28. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 20.01.2021 passed by this Court, requiring the IIM, Amritsar, to indicate the present position of its staff strength, both teaching and non-teaching, irrespective of the nature of the employment, Shivali Rathore, Nodal Officer, filed additional affidavit dated 22.01.2021 supported by Annexure A-3. 28. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 20.01.2021 passed by this Court, requiring the IIM, Amritsar, to indicate the present position of its staff strength, both teaching and non-teaching, irrespective of the nature of the employment, Shivali Rathore, Nodal Officer, filed additional affidavit dated 22.01.2021 supported by Annexure A-3. As per this document, the staff strength, both teaching and non-teaching, of the IIM, Amritsar, as on 21.01.2021, is as follows: There are 19 regular Assistant Professors and four contractual Assistant Professors working. Four Academic Associates, three Academic & Research Support and two Academic Assistants are also working, presumably on regular basis as another Academic Assistant working on contractual basis is shown separately. Two Administrative Officers, including Shivali Rathore, are working on regular basis while the Director is on contract. Similarly, a Project Construction Manager, a Senior Placement Officer and a MEP Engineer are on contract. 29. Amongst the non-teaching staff, one Accountant, one Assistant System Administrator & Procurement Assistant and one Assistant Library & Information Officer are working on regular basis while one Office Assistant (Transportation), one Senior Academic Associate, one Academic Assistant, one HR Supervisor & Director's Office Co-ordinator, one Assistant Hostel Warden and one Program Executive are working on contract basis. Insofar as outsourced employees are concerned, details of ten such employees were furnished - one Procurement & Inventory Accountant, one Junior Accountant Tally & MIS, one Technical Assistant IT, one Technical Assistant, one Hostel Caretaker, one Data Processing Assistant, one Junior Faculty Support, one Engineering Quality Technician, one Electrician and one Office Boy (Part-time). 30. Significantly, Sushma Kaushal, Academic Assistant, and Simrandeep Singh Thapar, Administrative Officer, whose services were regularized, and Sanjay Kumar Tripathi, Senior Placement Officer, who is continued on contract basis, were appointed on temporary basis contemporaneously with the petitioners. Similarly, Yashpal Avasthi, Office Assistant, who was earlier appointed along with the petitioners, continues in service as Office Assistant (Transportation) on contractual basis. So too, Deepak Kukreti, Senior Library & Information Assistant, earlier on contract basis, who has now been regularized in service as Assistant Library & Information Officer. Sanjay Kumar Tripathi, who was earlier a Senior Placement Consultant on contractual basis, on par with the petitioners, is still continuing in the same capacity as on date. 31. So too, Deepak Kukreti, Senior Library & Information Assistant, earlier on contract basis, who has now been regularized in service as Assistant Library & Information Officer. Sanjay Kumar Tripathi, who was earlier a Senior Placement Consultant on contractual basis, on par with the petitioners, is still continuing in the same capacity as on date. 31. One of the contentions of the IIM, Amritsar, was that as the petitioners were recruited only on contract basis on the basis of interviews and their recruitment was not against sanctioned posts, they could not claim to be adjusted against sanctioned posts. This argument falls to the ground in the light of the regularization of Simrandeep Singh Thapar, Sushma Kaushal and Deepak Kukreti, who were also appointed on contractual basis earlier on the strength of interviews. If it is the stand of the IIM, Amritsar, that the selection process adopted for appointment of the petitioners and the other temporary staff at that point of time was insufficient to entail regular appointment, there is no explanation as to how these persons were regularized in service based on the very same selection process. There is also no explanation as to why others appointed along with the petitioners are being continued in service in one capacity or the other while they alone are singled out on the ground that there is no more work available for them. 32. Further, Mandeep Kaur, the Academic Assistant who is now working on contract basis, is stated to have been appointed after Amit Gaind, the petitioner in CWP No.37007 of 2019, but she was continued in service though he was shown the door. Similarly, Aarti Bagga, Academic Assistant, was also appointed after Amit Gaind. Their appointments dilute the contention of the IIM, Amritsar, that there was no work available and that was the reason why Amit Gaind's services were terminated. It is not the case of the IIM, Amritsar, that he was removed due to any other reason. 33. That apart, the petitioners placed on record details of other outsourced employees whose information was not furnished by the IIM, Amritsar, despite the order of this Court. These outsourced employees include Drivers, Multi-tasking staff, House-keeping employees, etc. As the petitioners were also involved in discharge of similar duties, it appears that IIM, Amritsar, deliberately withheld this information. 33. That apart, the petitioners placed on record details of other outsourced employees whose information was not furnished by the IIM, Amritsar, despite the order of this Court. These outsourced employees include Drivers, Multi-tasking staff, House-keeping employees, etc. As the petitioners were also involved in discharge of similar duties, it appears that IIM, Amritsar, deliberately withheld this information. This lack of transparency and forthrightness on its part requires to be condemned in no uncertain terms. All the more so, as Shivali Rathore. Administrative Officercum-Nodal Officer of the Institute, who filed the affidavit dated 22.01.2021 furnishing the details of the present staff, is the signatory to the attendance sheets of these other outsourced employees, clearly evidencing her knowledge of the same. 34. Be it also noted that out of the outsourced employees who are presently working in for the IIM, Amritsar, Tarsem Singh and Kashmir Singh were appointed earlier on contractual basis along with the petitioners. 35. According to the IIM, Amritsar, the four petitioners who secured status quo orders from this Court have no work but are being paid salary due to the said orders. It further contended that as the petitioners were appointed purely on contract basis, they could not seek to be continued or regularized in service. Both these contentions fall to the ground in the light of the aforestated admitted facts that demonstrate to the contrary. 36. Further, the actions of the IIM, Amritsar, do not support its claim that it has no need for personnel and that the petitioners and other employees are surplus. The advertisements issued from time to time by the IIM, Amritsar, even in the recent past, belie this stand. For example, Advertisement dated 24.06.2019 was issued by the IIM, Amritsar, proposing to fill the following posts on fixed-term contract basis. Office Assistant two Office Assistant (Accounts) one Executive Assistant one Multi-tasking Assistant two 37. Be it noted that this advertisement also specified that candidates for the post of Multi-tasking Assistant had to possess a valid driving licence for heavy/light motor vehicles. This advertisement was issued through the mentoring IIM at Kozhikode. The Director for the IIM, Amritsar, was appointed in July, 2019. He is stated to have analyzed the requirement of work and manpower and dropped the said advertisement. 38. This advertisement was issued through the mentoring IIM at Kozhikode. The Director for the IIM, Amritsar, was appointed in July, 2019. He is stated to have analyzed the requirement of work and manpower and dropped the said advertisement. 38. By Recruitment Notification dated 16.07.2019, the IIM, Amritsar, proclaimed that it was the fifteenth IIM set up by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, with the support of the Government of Punjab; that the first batch of the Class of 2015-2017 had been enrolled in August, 2015; and that the Institute was being run currently from the transit campus. It went on to state that it was looking for enthusiastic and hard-working candidates who were seeking appointment to the notified posts on direct recruitment/deputation/contract basis. The posts notified thereunder on direct recruitment/deputation basis were one post of Chief Administrative Officer, one post of Finance Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer and one post of Administrative Officer. The contractual post was only one, viz., Civil Engineer/Project Manager. 39. By way of a separate Recruitment Notification of the same date, the IIM, Amritsar notified one post of Store & Purchaser Officer, one post of Secretary to Director and one post of Accountant to be filled up on direct recruitment/deputation basis. This advertisement clearly indicates that the post of Secretary to Director was still available even after the coming into force of the Act of 2017 and the abolition of the said post could have been only after 16.07.2019. 40. The IIM, Amritsar, then published Advertisement dated 13.07.2020 inviting online applications for appointment to the non-teaching posts of Administrative Officer (Academics & Administration), Administrative Officer (Corporate Relations & Administration), Assistant Library & Information Officer, and Assistant System Administrator & Procurement Assistant, on regular basis, and one post of HR Supervisor & Co-ordinator (Director's Office) and two posts of Hostel Warden/Assistant Warden on contractual basis. The last date for submission of such online applications was stated to be 27.07.2020. 41. The detailed information furnished to the candidates stated that the IIM, Amritsar, was the fifteenth IIM set up by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, with the support of the Government of Punjab and that four batches of MBAs had already graduated with 100% placement year after year. 41. The detailed information furnished to the candidates stated that the IIM, Amritsar, was the fifteenth IIM set up by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, with the support of the Government of Punjab and that four batches of MBAs had already graduated with 100% placement year after year. It further stated that a permanent campus was to be built on 61 acres of land and the construction of the campus was expected to commence shortly. It went on to state that with the diversity of students and faculty from all over India, the Institute reflected a truly national character commensurate with its status as an Institute of national importance. All the notified posts, per the Institute, required a full 24x7 commitment to the Institute and candidates willing to dedicate themselves wholeheartedly to the Institute were expected to apply. 42. It is also relevant to note that, by order dated 25.02.2020, this Court had directed the authorities to file an affidavit indicating as to what was the sanctioned staff structure in the IIMs at Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Calcutta, Lucknow, Indore and Kozhikode, at present and in the year 2015. However, this information was never furnished. 43. Earlier, by order dated 29.01.2020 passed in these writ petitions, this Court, having heard arguments, asked the learned counsel appearing for the IIM, Amritsar, to get instructions as to whether it would consider the candidature of the petitioners for adjustment against the sanctioned posts which still remained unfilled as on date. However, no convincing answer was given on this aspect and in the meanwhile, the said sanctioned posts seem to have been abolished! 44. In any event, the unanimous decision under Clause 6 (v) of the Minutes dated 31.03.2015 clearly establishes that a promise was held out to the temporary faculty and staff that their candidature would be considered for adjustment against the 'to be sanctioned posts' of the IIM, Amritsar. It may also be noted that sanctioned posts were, in fact, created by the Government of India for the IIM, Amritsar, on 14.12.2016 itself. However, for reasons unknown, no steps were taken to adjust any of the petitioners against such sanctioned posts or to fill them by undertaking recruitment through other means. 45. It may also be noted that sanctioned posts were, in fact, created by the Government of India for the IIM, Amritsar, on 14.12.2016 itself. However, for reasons unknown, no steps were taken to adjust any of the petitioners against such sanctioned posts or to fill them by undertaking recruitment through other means. 45. Significantly, IIM, Amritsar, became functional during the academic year 2015-16 itself and there must have been a need for regular personnel, as it was an Institute still in the making. However, after this Court passed an order on 29.01.2020 requiring the IIM, Amritsar, to examine as to whether the petitioners could be adjusted against sanctioned posts that still remained unfilled as on that date, the sanctioned posts came to be abolished for reasons apparent. This abolition was stated to have been effected by the Director of the Institute, a contractual employee himself! 46. That apart, though Annexure A-1 stated to the effect that abolition of these posts was done with the approval of the competent authority and the Union of India also seeks to wash its hands off the matter by stating that it is completely within the domain of the IIMs to create posts and make appointments thereto, the Act of 2017 provides otherwise. 47. Section 11 of the Act of 2017 deals with the powers and functions of the Board of Governors of an IIM. Section 11(2)(i) states that the Board would have the power to create academic, administrative, technical and other posts and to make appointments thereto. However, the proviso thereto indicates that the cadre, pay scales, allowances and terms of employment of such posts shall be such as may be determined by the Central Government. 48. Therefore, in logical sequence, in the event posts were already sanctioned by the Government of India, as in the case on hand, the Board of Governors of IIM, Amritsar, could not have abolished such sanctioned posts without the approval of the Central Government. This is clear from the fact that the 'terms of employment' as to these sanctioned posts could not have been altered without the approval of the Central Government. The proviso clearly demonstrates that the ultimate call with regard to posts in the IIMs is to be by the Central Government, in terms of cadre, pay scales, allowances and terms of employment. The proviso clearly demonstrates that the ultimate call with regard to posts in the IIMs is to be by the Central Government, in terms of cadre, pay scales, allowances and terms of employment. Not only the creation of posts entails such determination by the Government but also abolition of the already created posts. There is no indication that the posts sanctioned on 14.12.2016 were abolished with the knowledge and approval of the Central Government. The self-serving unilateral abolition of the sanctioned posts, ostensibly effected by the contractual Director of the IIM, Amritsar, is therefore of no avail to rebut the petitioners' claims. 49. That apart, it may be noted that Section 5(d) of the Act of 2017 protected the rights of the personnel already employed by the IIMs before the commencement of the Act of 2017. The said provision makes it clear that the same rights and privileges, not only with regard to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund but also 'other matters' that the employee would have held, had the Act of 2017 not been enacted, would continue. Therefore, the right which vested in the petitioners pursuant to the Minutes dated 31.03.2015 to have their candidature considered for adjustment against regular posts after their sanction remained unaltered and the promulgation of the Act of 2017 did not have the effect of wiping out such a vested right. On the other hand, the aforestated provision protected it. It is an admitted fact that none of the petitioners' candidature was considered for adjustment against the regular sanctioned posts even at the point of time that they were allowed to remain in existence. 50. The material placed on record demonstrates that two of the abolished posts, viz., the posts of Secretary to Director as well as the Store & Purchase Officer were notified for recruitment by the Advertisement dated 16.07.2019. Therefore, even as on that date, these posts were still in existence but the IIM, Amritsar, baldly stated in Annexure A-1 that these posts stood abolished with the approval of the competent authority, without furnishing further details. Significantly. the IIM, Amritsar, going by its Notifications dated 16.07.2019 and 13.07.2020, professed to be an Institute of national importance. The posts which are stated to have been abolished are regular administrative posts which would be essential for the functioning of the organization. Significantly. the IIM, Amritsar, going by its Notifications dated 16.07.2019 and 13.07.2020, professed to be an Institute of national importance. The posts which are stated to have been abolished are regular administrative posts which would be essential for the functioning of the organization. Posts such as Secretary to Director, Store & Purchase Officer, Personal Assistant, Office Assistant, Drivers and Attendants-Peons, would be part of day-to-day functioning and doing away with such crucial posts on a permanent basis by abolishing them does not augur well for an IIM which claims to be of national importance. Even if it is functioning as on date from a transit campus, the IIM, Amritsar, admits that its permanent campus is coming up. Therefore, infrastructure, in terms of land & building as well as proper staff, needs to be built up for the nottoo-distant date in the future when it would be fully operational. Abolishing posts now, with the intention of denying the petitioners, seems to be a rather short-sighted approach for the IIM, Amritsar, to be adopting at this stage. 51. It is the claim of the IIM, Amritsar, that it adopted the Outsourcing Policy of the Government of India and in the light of the same, there is no work available for contractual employment of the petitioners, let alone regularizing them in service. However, reliance placed by the IIM, Amritsar, upon the Manual for Procurement of Consultancy and Other Services, 2017, brought out by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, is completely misplaced. This Manual sets out the norms applicable to procurement of services and also outsourcing of services. Clause 1.3.4 of the Manual states that the term 'Outsourcing of Services' implies deployment of outside agencies on a sustained long-term for performance of other services which were traditionally being done in-house by employees of Ministries/Departments (Security Services, Horticultural Services, Janitor/Cooking/Catering/Management Services for Hostels/Guest Houses, Cleaning/Housekeeping Services, Errand/Messenger Services and so forth). Clause 1.3.8 makes it clear that the 'Procurement Entities' who could benefit from this Manual would include Ministries, Departments, or a unit thereof, or an attached or subordinate offices/units; Central Public Sector Enterprises or undertakings; any other body (including autonomous bodies) substantially owned or controlled by or receiving substantial financial assistance from the Central Government. 52. It is not in dispute that after the initial grants, the IIM, Amritsar, is no longer in receipt of Central Government funding. 52. It is not in dispute that after the initial grants, the IIM, Amritsar, is no longer in receipt of Central Government funding. If that be so, the very applicability of the aforestated procurement guidelines to the IIM, Amritsar, is doubtful. Be it noted that it is only autonomous bodies which are in receipt of Central Government funding that can adopt these guidelines. In any event, the guidelines also indicate that it is only incidental services that are amenable to outsourcing through an outside agency and not essential and permanent day-to-day posts which are integral to the very functioning of the autonomous body. As already pointed out supra, the IIM, Amritsar, seems to have lost sight of this distinction and wishes to engage all kinds of personnel through outsourcing agencies without reference to the nature of duties to be discharged by them. So much so that the IIM, Amritsar, seems to have engaged even the Director of the Institute on contractual basis! 53. Further, the manner in which IIM, Amritsar, is undertaking outsourcing of employees clearly manifests that it continues to have control and the facade of outsourcing is adopted merely to pay lip service to that status so as to disclaim responsibility/relationship vis- -vis the persons employed through such outsourcing. As pointed out earlier, some of the employees who were appointed on temporary/contractual basis along with the petitioners are still being continued by utilizing their services on outsourcing basis. It is not explained as to how an outside agency would have employed the very same persons so that they could come back to the IIM, Amritsar, in this new guise. Further, the reluctance of the IIM, Amritsar, in sharing the full details of such outsourced employees, despite being called upon to do so, clearly weighs against it. The deliberate attempt to withhold these details when this Court asked for the same, whereby Annexure A-3 was placed on record indicating the names of only 10 outsourced employees, clearly shows the lack of bonafides on the part of the IIM, Amritsar. Thereafter, the petitioners brought it to light that apart from Tarsem Singh, who finds mention in this list of 10 employees, there are 14 other outsourced employees. 04 of the outsourced employees are Drivers, viz., Sukhdev Singh, Tarsem Singh, Kashmir Singh and Harinder Singh. Thereafter, the petitioners brought it to light that apart from Tarsem Singh, who finds mention in this list of 10 employees, there are 14 other outsourced employees. 04 of the outsourced employees are Drivers, viz., Sukhdev Singh, Tarsem Singh, Kashmir Singh and Harinder Singh. The petitioners also placed on record proof of the IIM, Amritsar, owning three cars and three buses which are being utilized even as on date. Though the IIM, Amritsar, attempted to offer an explanation with regard to the usage of these vehicles, the fact remains that four Drivers are being engaged on outsourcing basis. These four outsourced Drivers are working continuously, as is evident from the attendance sheets of October, November and December, 2020. The net pay given to each such Driver is ' 15,766/-. It is an admitted fact that out of the four petitioners who secured orders of status quo, three had worked as Drivers. They are all being paid salary without utilizing their services. When the IIM, Amritsar, has need for Drivers at least on outsourcing basis, there is no reason why it could not have continued to utilize the services of these three petitioners to whom it was already paying salary. Instead of doing so, the IIM, Amritsar, seems to be incurring unnecessary extra expenditure on outsourcing Drivers while continuing to pay salary to these petitioners without extracting work. This reflects patent egoism and obduracy on the part of the authorities of the IIM, Amritsar, in willfully opposing the interim orders of this Court. 54. Further, arbitrariness is writ large in the actions of the IIM, Amritsar, as is clear from the fact that some of the temporary/contractual employees are still being accommodated, be it on whatever basis, but others like the petitioners are ousted, perhaps for the reason that they have asserted their rights. Significantly, three of the petitioners were terminated from service after they filed these writ petitions. Such termination is not shown to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act of 2017. Further, as already pointed out supra, Amit Gaind's termination from service as an Academic Assistant is manifestly arbitrary. 55. The aforestated facts demonstrate that the actions of the IIM, Amritsar, in dealing with the petitioners were far from satisfactory and do not pass the test of fair play in action. Palpably, such actions were not above board or transparent. Further, as already pointed out supra, Amit Gaind's termination from service as an Academic Assistant is manifestly arbitrary. 55. The aforestated facts demonstrate that the actions of the IIM, Amritsar, in dealing with the petitioners were far from satisfactory and do not pass the test of fair play in action. Palpably, such actions were not above board or transparent. The petitioners are therefore entitled to be continued in service, be it on temporary basis or otherwise, till their vested right to be considered for adjustment against the 'to be sanctioned posts' is given effect. 56. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned orders dated 05.10.2018. The services of the petitioners shall be utilized by the IIM, Amritsar, be it on whatever basis, till consideration of their right to be adjusted against regular posts, as and when sanctioned. 57. Pending applications seeking to place on record relevant documents and material are ordered. Other pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. 58. No order as to costs.