Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1403 (JHR)

Vishal S/o Dr. S. P. Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2023-11-30

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. I.A. No. 10152 of 2022 in L.P.A. No. 423 of 2022 1. This petition has been filed seeking condonation of a delay of 91 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to paragraph Nos. 4 to 6 of the interlocutory application to submit that if the delay is not condoned the appellants would suffer irreparable loss and injury. 3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents do not have any serious objection, so far as the condonation of delay is concerned. 4. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and being satisfied with the cause shown by the appellants, the delay of 91 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. 5. I.A. No. 10152 of 2022 is allowed. L.P.A. No. 423 of 2022 6. Dr. Vishal and Dr. Tanya Khaitan have filed L.P.A. No. 423 of 2022 challenging the judgment/order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 3497 of 2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants along with others has been dismissed. 7. W.P. (S) No. 3497 of 2020 was filed for the following reliefs: “(i) For issuance of an appropriate Writs, orders and/or directions, particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners on the post of Tutor under respondent-RIMS. (ii) For issuance of further appropriate Writs, orders and/or directions, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to work on the post of Tutor under the Respondent, during pendency of the present writ application. (iii) For issuance of any other appropriate writs/directions orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice.” 8. The learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition by inter-alia holding that the appellants had accepted the terms and conditions of the advertisement as well as the appointment letters and it is settled principles of law that once appointments are made and the process of appointment is complete by way of joining the said post, the persons who have duly participated in the process of appointment accepting the terms and conditions of advertisement, cannot challenge the same. It has been held that regularization is not a right of an employee who has been appointed to a post of which tenure is fixed and appointment in a ‘tenure post’ comes to an end at the end of said tenure and the same cannot be extended. It has been held that no legal right has accrued in favour of the appellants and the State has no obligation to regularize the appellants which admittedly is a ‘tenure post’. The argument that since the post of Tutor is a permanent sanctioned post, therefore, it cannot be said to be a ‘tenure post’, has also been rejected by the learned writ Court. The learned writ Court recorded the findings in paragraphs 21 and 22 while dismissing the writ petition which are quoted as under: “21. After going through arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties across the bar and from perusal of documents brought on records, it appears that no case is made out for any interference in these writ petitions for the following facts and reasons: (a) Petitioners have accepted the terms and conditions of the advertisement as well as the appointment letters. It is settled principles of law that once appointments are made and process of appointment is complete by way of joining the said post, the petitioners who have duly participated in the process of appointment accepting the terms and conditions of advertisement, cannot challenge the same. Once petitioners have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the respondents, they are precluded from challenging the same. (b) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Balam Prasad and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2018) 12 SCC 50 , it has been held at Para-18 as under: “18. In our opinion also, when the appointment of the appellants (writ petitioners) was made for a fixed period in exercise of the powers under Rule 57-A and the said appointment period having come to an end in the year 1991 after granting some extension, we fail to appreciate as to how the appellants could claim to remain in service after 1991. 19. 19. One cannot dispute that the State has the power to appoint persons for a temporary period under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and once such power was exercised by the State, the status of such appointee continued to be that of temporary employee notwithstanding grant of some extensions to them for some more period. 20. In other words, the grant of extension to work for some more period to the writ petitioners could never result in conferring on them the status of a permanent employee or/and nor could enable them to seek regularisation in the services unless some Rule had recognised any such right in their favour. 21. That apart, when the period fixed in the appointment orders expired in the year 1991 then there was no scope for the appellants to have claimed continuity in service for want of any extension order in that behalf. 22. We have perused the Circular dated 16-4-2008 (Annexure P-7) issued by the State. This circular only says that if any temporary persons are appointed for a particular project and if they are found to be of some utility, their services can be regularised as per Rules. 23. As mentioned above, so far as the cases of these appellants are concerned, their representations were examined by the State but were rejected finding no merit therein. One of the reasons for rejection of the representation was that the services of the appellants had already come to an end in 1991 and, therefore, no orders to regularise their services could now be passed after such a long lapse of time. (c) Admittedly regularization is not right of an employee who has been appointed on a post of which tenure is fixed. In a tenure post, appointment comes to an end at the end of said tenure and the same cannot be extended. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , has held that it is not open to the Court to prevent regular appointment at the instance of an employee whose period of employment has come to an end. The theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. The theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post. In the instant case, the said post is a tenure post and made for Training purposes and there are no promotional hierarchy. The service will come to an end after fixed period of time. (d) Petitioners cannot claim equality and in the instant cases, there is no violation of provisions of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India as there cannot be equality in illegality. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Sipahi Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 145 , has observed as under: “........A writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance.” Therefore, it can comfortably be said that no legal right has accrued in favour of the petitioners and the State has no obligation to regularize the petitioners on the said post which admittedly is a tenure post. This Court in the case of Randhir Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand and Others in W.P.( S) No. 3368 of 2012 and affirmed in L.P.A. No. 467 of 2012 has held that the post of Senior Resident is not permanent and they cannot be promoted as Assistant Professor nor can they continue to same as Senior Resident after expiry of tenure period. (e) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow and Others, (1976) 3 SCC 585 has held that the candidate who participated in the selection process cannot challenge the validity of the said selection process after appearing in the said selection process and taking opportunity of being selected. Para-15 of the said Judgment is reproduced herein below: “15..........He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is now not open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee.” It is settled principle of law that once terms and conditions of the advertisement have been accepted by the petitioners, it cannot be challenged after appearing in the examination and when the results have been declared. (f) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Post Doctoral Research Associates of S.V. University, Dr. K. Krishna Reddy and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2002) 5 SCC 24 has held in Para-8 as under: “8. In V.P. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 171 this Court followed the decision rendered in V.P. Chandra Case (1990) 3 SCC 38 and similar directions were given in that case also. This Court in Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain Case (2000) 4 SCC 186 examined the Scheme of appointment as Pool Officer and under Scientists’ Pool Scheme or as Scientist Fellow under the Scheme of Quick Recruitment of Scientists (Fellows) for major projects on contract basis for a limited period and held that it did not entitle them to regularization of their services or absorption in CSIR and distinguished the decision in Prathibha Misra Case (1997) 35 ATC 501 which we have adverted to earlier.” (g) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. N. Murugesan and Others, (2022) 2 SCC 25 has held in Para-37 and 38 as under: “37. We have already dealt with the principles of law that may have a bearing on this case. There is no element of an unequal bargaining power involved. Nobody has forced the respondent to enter into a contract. He indeed was an employee of the Society for 23 years. We have already dealt with the principles of law that may have a bearing on this case. There is no element of an unequal bargaining power involved. Nobody has forced the respondent to enter into a contract. He indeed was an employee of the Society for 23 years. We do not wish to go into the question as to whether it is a case of re-employment or not, as the fact remains that the respondent wanted the job, which is why there was an unexplained and studied reluctance to raise the issue of him being a permanent/regular employee, but only at the fag end of his tenure. 38. The first of the representations was made on 30- 12-2014, followed by others. The conduct speaks for itself. Hence, on the principle governing delay, laches, and acquiescence, followed by approbation and reprobation, Respondent 1 ought not to have been granted any relief by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the interpretation of the Rules, we have already discussed that there is no prohibition in law for a tenure appointment. We are dealing with a post that stands at the top realm of the administration. There is an intended object and rationale attached to the post. It is the incumbent of the post who has to carry forward the object and vision in the field of research. As noted earlier, there is certainly an overwhelming public interest involved. The employer has a load of discretion available. In the absence of any arbitrariness, one cannot question its wisdom. After all, a decision has been taken at the highest level. We cannot infer that materials have not been placed before taking the decision. The Division Bench [N. Murugesan vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC Online Kar. 514] was not right in holding that the highest constitutional authority on the executive side was misled by the lower officials. We find no place for such an inference. A conscious decision has been made to go for a tenure appointment in the interest of the Society. Similarly, a conscious decision was also made to go for a fresh recruitment.” (h) The arguments advanced by learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners that since the post of Tutor is a permanent sanctioned post, therefore, it cannot be said to be a tenure post, is not acceptable to this Court. Similarly, a conscious decision was also made to go for a fresh recruitment.” (h) The arguments advanced by learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners that since the post of Tutor is a permanent sanctioned post, therefore, it cannot be said to be a tenure post, is not acceptable to this Court. The post is always permanent in nature and adversely the said post, which is also sanctioned, is only for three years and after that those who are appointed, have to make rooms for others for Training and get Specialisation and move further. (i) The earlier post of House Surgeon have now been replaced by the Tutors/ Residents/ Sr. Residents whose selections are made every year and after completion of their tenure, they have to demit the posts for others. The RIMS is admittedly guided by its own Rules and Regulations and also of the Medical Council of India. Since petitioners are working under RIMS, they are bound to follow the Rules and Regulations of RIMS as well as Medical Council of India. Their appointments have been made following the Rules of RIMS and that of the Medical Council of India. Now at this juncture they cannot take a ‘U Turn’ that they are guided by Dental Council of India and not by the Medical Council of India since they have already accepted the same at the very inception i.e. at the time of their initial appointment. (j) If the petitioners are allowed to continue on the said post, the entire purpose of appointment on the said post of Tutor shall be frustrated as others who are waiting to be appointed, are being deprived of the opportunities to be trained as specialist upon their appointment on the post of Tutor, due to status quo and non-publication of result, which is against larger public interest. (k) The reliance of learned Sr. Counsel in the case of Pani Ram vs. Union of India and Others in Civil Appeal No. 2275 of 2019, does not come to their rescue as the case in hand is different from the ratio laid down in those cases. It has clearly been held that this principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the contracting parties are equal or almost equal. It is not a case where the petitioners were in need of a job and were not in a bargaining position. It has clearly been held that this principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the contracting parties are equal or almost equal. It is not a case where the petitioners were in need of a job and were not in a bargaining position. Petitioners were fully aware that the post of Tutor is a post of Training which comes to an end after a period of three years and as such being fully conscious of facts, they accepted the offer of appointment and at this stage they cannot challenge the same and disturb the new lot of Trainees who are waiting for their turn. Similarly situated persons have never been considered for regularization after their appointment on a tenure posts. (l) Learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has also placed heavy reliance in the case of State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Vinay Kumar, 2015 SCC Online Jhar 398 : (2015) 2 JBCJ 212 (HC). The ratio decided in the said case is also not attracted and is of no help to the petitioners in the instant cases. In the said case the case of similarly situated persons were considered for appointment and it was only petitioner’s case which was turned down and distinguished as earlier he had accepted the appointment letter. Here the case is entirely different and not a single person has been considered for regularization and as such case of the petitioners is hereby distinguished. 22. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncement, I do not find any interference is warranted in the instant writ petitions. Consequently, the writ petitions merits dismissal and are hereby dismissed. Interim orders dated 25.11.2020 and 09.03.2021 respectively stand vacated.” 9. The learned counsel for the appellants in L.P.A. No. 423 of 2022 has submitted that the learned writ Court while dismissing the writ petition has failed to consider that so far as the Rajendra Institute of Medical Science (RIMS) Regulations are concerned, these are contrary to the rules of the Dental Council of India since no appointment could have been made as ‘tenure post’. The learned counsel submits that the relevant provisions for the present case are Regulation Nos. 8 and 19 of Regulations of 2014 and Section 6(xii) of the RIMS Act, 2002. 10. The learned counsel submits that the relevant provisions for the present case are Regulation Nos. 8 and 19 of Regulations of 2014 and Section 6(xii) of the RIMS Act, 2002. 10. The learned counsel further submits that although the appellants had applied for appointment as Tutor having a tenure of only three years and were also appointed for three years only but the Dental Council of India Regulation does not permit such kind of appointment and, therefore, for all practical purposes, the appointment so made was required to be regularized. The learned counsel submits that the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3497 of 2020 was filed just before the completion of three years and a prayer seeking regularization was made but in the subsequent writ petition i.e. W.P. (S) No. 688 of 2022, the very provision by which the post of Tutor has been provided as a ‘tenure post’ has been challenged. 11. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Somesh Thapliyal and Another vs. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University and Another, (2021) 10 SCC 116 and has in particular referred to paragraph Nos. 42 and 43 of the said judgment to submit that merely because the applicants had participated in the selection process for Tutor as ‘tenure post’ for a fixed period, the same will not prevent them from challenging the action of the respondents because the appellants and the respondents did not have equal bargaining power at the time of appointment of the appellants as Tutor for a tenure of three years only. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants and has submitted that the learned writ Court has considered all the aspects of the matter and has dismissed the writ petition. The learned counsel has also submitted that the appellants had participated in the selection process with open eyes and not only the advertisement but also the letter of appointment indicated that the post of Tutor was for a tenure of three years only and no right was conferred upon them to seek any kind of regularization. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 13. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 13. The learned counsel has submitted that the ‘tenure post’ was created as per the scheme governing the rules and regulations and the creation of the ‘tenure post’ for the MDS is not contrary to the Dental Council of India Rules and Regulations. The learned counsel has also submitted that no case for challenge to the aforesaid provision has been made out by the writ petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 688 of 2022 and there is no legal bar in making an appointment on the ‘tenure post’ so far as the tutors are concerned. It is submitted that the respondents have strictly followed the selection process as per the Act, Rules, and Regulations governing the Rajendra Institute of Medical Science (RIMS). Findings of this Court in L.P.A. No. 423 of 2022 14. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the appellants along with others in L.P.A. No. 423 of 2022 had participated in the selection process under Advertisement No. 910 dated 19.02.2016 and Advertisement No. 2250 dated 28.03.2017 which were advertised for appointment of Tutors in various departments of RIMS for a fixed period of three years. The appellants along with others were ultimately selected for the post of Tutors in different departments (Dental Institutes under RIMS). The advertisement as well as the letter of appointment issued to the appellants have been annexed along with the memorandum of appeal. The advertisements indicate that the posts were advertised for a ‘tenure post’ of three years only. The said clause in the Advertisement No. 910 dated 19.02.2016 is quoted as under: “1. The post of tutor is tenure for the period of 03 years only.” The relevant clause for this case in Advertisement No. 2250 dated 28.03.2017 is quoted as under: “This Advertisement is in continuation of Adv. No. 910 dated 19-02-2016 of RIMS, Ranchi. Applications with completer bio-data are invited for filling up the under-mentioned posts on Tenure basis for 03 years in different Departments of Dental Institute under Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi. No. 910 dated 19-02-2016 of RIMS, Ranchi. Applications with completer bio-data are invited for filling up the under-mentioned posts on Tenure basis for 03 years in different Departments of Dental Institute under Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi. An autonomous institution under the Government of Jharkhand.” Name of Department Name of Posts No. of Posts Category UR ST BC-I Prosthodontics , Crown Bridge, Aesthetic Dentistry and Oral Implantology Tutor 4 2 1 1 Oral Pathology, Microbiology and Forensic Odontology Tutor 3 2 1 - Conservative, Endodontics and Aesthetic Dentistry Tutor 4 2 1 1 Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Implantology Tutor 4 2 1 1 Periodontology and Oral Implantology Tutor 3 2 1 - Orthodontics and Dento-facial Orthopaedics Tutor 3 2 1 - Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry Tutor 3 2 1 - Oral Medicine and Radiology Tutor 3 2 1 - Public Health Dentistry and Preventive Dentistry Tutor 3 2 1 - Total 30 18 09 03 “1. The post of tutor is tenure for the period of 03 years only.” 15. The letters of appointment also clearly reflect that the post was a ‘tenure post’ for a period of three years and it was also indicated that any claim for promotion or extension of Tutorship on any ground will not be entertained. Clauses-1 and 2 of the appointment letter issued to the appellants are quoted as under: “1. This post is tenure post for a period of three yrs (3 years). 2. Any claim for promotion or extension of Tutorship on any ground will not be entertained.” 16. This Court finds that the appellants participated in the selection process with open eyes and also accepted their appointment letters and almost at the end of the period of three years, they filed the writ petition seeking regularization. This Court is of the considered view that once the appellants participated in the selection process advertised for a fixed term of three years and were accordingly appointed for a fixed period of three years, there is no scope for regularization since the letter of appointment itself indicated that any claim for promotion or extension of Tutorship on any ground will not be entertained. 17. This Court also finds that neither the advertisement was under challenge in the writ proceedings nor any of the terms and conditions of appointment was under challenge. 17. This Court also finds that neither the advertisement was under challenge in the writ proceedings nor any of the terms and conditions of appointment was under challenge. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the terms and conditions of advertisement as well as the appointment are binding on the parties and after having taken the appointment, there is no scope for the appellants to contend that they should be regularized. 18. So far as the argument of the appellants in connection with unequal bargaining power and reference to the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is concerned, the said aspect of the matter has also been considered by the learned writ Court and has been rejected. This Court is of the considered view that the plea of the appellants that they had unequal bargaining power has been rightly rejected by the learned writ Court and no such case has been made out, particularly when neither the advertisement nor the terms and conditions of appointment were under challenge before the learned writ Court. 19. So far as the judgment reported in (2021) 10 SCC 116 (supra) is concerned, the same does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the said judgment was decided on a different fact situation. In the said case a selection process was initiated by issuing an advertisement for holding a regular selection on teaching posts in various departments including the Department of Pharmaceuticals Sciences with a stipulation that the regular pay scale to lecturers was subject to the approval of the State Government and the number of posts could be increased or decreased by the university. However, while issuing the appointment letters to the selected candidates, it was stipulated in the appointment letter, and at that stage for the first time a condition was incorporated in the appointment letter making the appointment contractual for a period of 3 years in the first instance which came to be extended at the later stage. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 37 of the judgment recorded that from the narration of facts it clearly manifested that the candidates were appointed after going through the process of selection as contemplated under Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 which indeed was an appointment on substantive basis and since the candidates were not in an equal bargaining position and were in need of employment when the offer of appointment were made, were left with no option but to accept such arbitrary conditions incorporated in the letter of appointment treating it to be contractual for a limited period and they still recorded their protest while joining but no heed was paid and when they were allowed to continue by extending their services, they remained under the bona fide belief that as their appointment is being substantive in character, they will be made permanent/confirmed immediately after the permanent posts are sanctioned in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences but instead of that an advertisement was issued in the year 2011 and in such circumstances the selected candidates had no option but to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition. In the aforesaid background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs nos. 42 to 44 that the bargaining power is vested with the employer itself, and the employee is left with no option but to accept the conditions dictated by the authority and accordingly, it was open to the employee to challenge the conditions if the same were not in conformity with the statutory requirement under law and the employee is not estopped from questioning such condition at a stage where he finds himself aggrieved. Paragraphs nos. 42 to 44 of the aforesaid judgment are extracted as under: “42. The submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants have accepted the terms and conditions contained in the letter of appointment deserves rejection for the reason that it is not open for a person appointed in public employment to ordinarily choose the terms and conditions of which he is required to serve. It goes without saying that employer is always in a dominating position and it is open to the employer to dictate the terms of employment. The employee who is at the receiving end can hardly complain of arbitrariness in the terms and conditions of employment. It goes without saying that employer is always in a dominating position and it is open to the employer to dictate the terms of employment. The employee who is at the receiving end can hardly complain of arbitrariness in the terms and conditions of employment. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that if an employee takes initiation in questioning the terms and conditions of employment, that would cost his/her job itself. 43. The bargaining power is vested with the employer itself and the employee is left with no option but to accept the conditions dictated by the authority. If that being the reason, it is open for the employee to challenge the conditions if it is not being in conformity with the statutory requirement under the law and he is not estopped from questioning at a stage where he finds himself aggrieved. 44. In the instant case, they lodged the protest petition and brought their grievance to the notice of the respondents but were unable to question except to pray to the Almighty to consider their grievance sympathetically.” 20. In the present case, the fact situation is different in as much as right from initiation of the selection process the posts of tutors were advertised for a ‘tenure post’ of 3 years only. The Regulation of 2014 under which the selection was made also provided for the appointment of tutors for 3 years ‘tenure post’ and the appointment letter was also issued for a ‘tenure post’ of 3 years only and it was also clarified in the appointment letter itself that any claim for promotion or extension of Tutorship on any ground will not be entertained. It is not a case where the posts were advertised for appointment on permanent posts and there was any modification concerning the conditions of appointment at a later stage after the candidates were declared successful which was the case in the judgment relied upon by the appellants reported in (2021) 10 SCC 116 (supra). Accordingly, the ratio of said judgment reported in (2021) 10 SCC 116 (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case and does not help the appellants in any manner whatsoever. The learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the plea of the appellant regarding unequal bargaining power in the matter of their employment and claim for regularization. 21. Accordingly, the ratio of said judgment reported in (2021) 10 SCC 116 (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case and does not help the appellants in any manner whatsoever. The learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the plea of the appellant regarding unequal bargaining power in the matter of their employment and claim for regularization. 21. This Court finds that the learned writ Court has passed a well-reasoned order considering every aspect of the matter and has rightly dismissed the writ petition and accordingly, there are no merits in this appeal. Findings of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 688 of 2022 22. W.P. (S) No. 688 of 2022 has been filed, inter-alia, challenging the subject at serial no. 10 of Schedule-III of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 to the extent it mentions Tutor (Academic) post to be ‘tenure post’. It is contended that the said provision is violative of Section 6 (xii) of the RIMS Act, 2002 read with Clause 8 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014. A further prayer has been made seeking a Mandamus commanding the respondent-RIMS to follow the mandates of the Dental Council of India as per Section 6 (xii) of RIMS Act, 2002 r/w Clause 8 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014, and to frame rules for Dental Institute, RIMS, separately, as per the guidelines of Dental Council of India. A Mandamus has also been prayed for commanding the respondent-RIMS to regularize the service of the petitioners on the post of Tutor under respondent-RIMS. 23. Thus, the petitioners who are appointees on the ‘tenure post’ of Tutors for three years at RIMS, Ranchi are primarily aggrieved by the entry at serial no. 10 of Schedule III of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 to the extent it mentions Tutor (academic) post to be a ‘tenure post’. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the aforesaid provision of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 is violative of section 6(xii) of the RIMS Act, 2002 read with Clause 8 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014. It is contended by the petitioners that the said portion of the Regulation does not follow the mandate of the Dental Council of India and is not as per the guidelines of the Dental Council of India. It is contended by the petitioners that the said portion of the Regulation does not follow the mandate of the Dental Council of India and is not as per the guidelines of the Dental Council of India. It has also been argued by the petitioners that Clause 19 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 mentions different types of posts; permanent post, tenure post, temporary post, and work charge post as mentioned in Sub-Clause (i) to (iv) respectively, but there is a clear provision under Sub-Clause 19 (v) that the persons working under temporary post or work charge post will not be entitled to claim regularization and by referring to Clause 19(v), meaning thereby that there is no legal bar in regularizing the incumbents working in the ‘tenure post’ and consequently, it has been argued that the petitioners are entitled to regularization even if they have been appointed for a tenure of three years. 24. Respondents nos. 2 and 3 have taken a specific stand in their counter affidavit that the petitioners did not challenge Entry No. - 10 and 15 of Schedule III of the RIMS Regulations, 2014 which provide that the post of Tutor is a ‘tenure post’ of three years only before applying under advertisement which also contained similar conditions. The petitioners were issued appointment letters with similar conditions which also they never challenged at the time of their appointment. The appointment letters mentioned that the petitioners would not have any claim for promotion or extension of tutorship on any ground whatsoever. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that in the meeting of the Governing Body of RIMS held on 21st March 2010 it was decided that the Tutor shall remain a ‘tenure post’ and only an extension of period/tenure was given to the then incumbents till new appointments were made. A stand has been taken that the posts of Tutors are permanent sanctioned posts, but appointments are to be made for a fixed tenure of three years only. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the Dental Council of India Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder have not provided that the post of Tutor in a dental institute shall not be a ‘tenure post’ and thus, the case of the respondent nos. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the Dental Council of India Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder have not provided that the post of Tutor in a dental institute shall not be a ‘tenure post’ and thus, the case of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 is that impugned Regulation is not in conflict with the provisions of Dental Council of India Act, Rules and Regulations or in conflict with the provision of RIMS Act, 2002. 25. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 (Dental Council of India) and they have taken a specific stand in the counter-affidavit that the question as to whether the post of Tutor should be a ‘tenure post’ or a ‘permanent post’ is beyond the scope and purview of the Dental Council of India as the Dental Council of India is neither the paymaster nor a cadre controlling authority of the staff of RIMS. They have further stated that it is only for the management of RIMS to decide the service conditions for the employment of their staff. They have stated in the counter-affidavit that so far as DCI Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course Regulations, 2007 is concerned, it provides the minimum basic qualification and teaching experience required for Tutors as per which a Tutor must have a recognized BDS degree from an Indian University or an equivalent qualification with at least one year of experience. A specific stand has been taken in the counter-affidavit that so far as the portion of the regulation impugned in this writ petition is concerned, the same conforms with the DCI BDS Course Regulations, 2007 as the eligibility criteria required for the post is a post-graduate medical degree which is MD/MS/MDS in the respective discipline from a recognized university/institute. It is the specific case of respondent no. 4 in the counter-affidavit that the Dental Council of India has prescribed the minimum qualification whereas the appointing authority may prescribe a higher qualification and in the instant case, the appointing authority has chosen to prescribe a higher qualification and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be in contravention of the Regulations of Dental Council of India. 26. No rejoinder has been filed to the counter-affidavit of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and also to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no. 4. Findings of this Court 27. 26. No rejoinder has been filed to the counter-affidavit of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and also to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no. 4. Findings of this Court 27. The writ petitioners were appointed to the post of Tutors in various dental departments under RIMS and the said post of tutor was a ‘tenure post’ for 3 years only under advertisement no. 4341 dated 09.08.2019. A copy of their appointment letters has also been produced. The advertisement as well as the terms and conditions of appointment are similar to that of the appellants in L.P.A. No. 423 of 2022 who were appointed under earlier advertisements. This writ petition is covered by the findings recorded by this Court in L.P.A. No. 423 of 2022 so far as the claim for regularization of the writ petitioners are concerned. However, in the writ petition aforesaid additional prayer has been made, inter-alia, challenging Serial 10 of Schedule-III of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 to the extent it mentions Tutor (Academic) post to be ‘tenure post’. 28. Section 6(xii) of RIMS Act, 2002 provides that RIMS Academic Council would make appointments of persons who, inter-alia, possess the required standards and educational qualifications in terms of Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, Indian Nursing Council and other statutory institutions. Section 6(xii) of RIMS Act, 2002 is quoted as under: 29. The entry at serial no. 10 of Schedule-III of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 provides that the post of tutor will be a ‘tenure post’ for three years only. Serial 10 of Schedule-III of the RIMS Regulation, 2014, which is under challenge in this writ petition is quoted as under: 30. Clause 8 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 provides for the creation of posts. It, inter-alia, provides that the appointments will be made by the RIMS Academic Council following the provisions made and guidelines prescribed under the Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, Indian Nursing Council, and other statutory institutions on the posts sanctioned by the State Government at the prescribed pay scale. Clause 8 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 is quoted as under: 31. Clause 18 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 provides that unless specifically provided the employees of RIMS will be full-time employees and RIMS would be free to take work from them as per the requirement. Clause 18 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 is quoted as under: 32. Clause 8 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 is quoted as under: 31. Clause 18 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 provides that unless specifically provided the employees of RIMS will be full-time employees and RIMS would be free to take work from them as per the requirement. Clause 18 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 is quoted as under: 32. Clause 19 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 provides for different types of posts. They are permanent posts, tenure posts, temporary posts, and work charge posts as mentioned in sub-Clause (i) to (iv) respectively. There is a clear provision under Clause 19 (v) that the persons working under the temporary post or work charge post will not be entitled to claim regularization. Clause 19 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 is quoted as under: 33. This Court is of the considered view that Clause 10 of Schedule III of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 provides that Tutor is a ‘tenure post’ and the appointment as Tutor is to be made for a fixed period of three years only. This naturally means that upon completion of the period of three years, the incumbent would have no further right to continue as a Tutor. Thus, merely because Clause 19(v) of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 does not refer to ‘tenure post’ the same cannot be construed to mean that there is no legal bar in regularizing the incumbents working as Tutors in the ‘tenure post’. Reliance of the petitioners on Clause 19(v) of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 to claim regularization is misconceived and hence devoid of any merits. The tutors who are appointees on ‘tenure post’ for three years are appointed only for a period of three years and no more and have no right to claim absorption or regularization as per the scheme of the RIMS Act, 2002 read with the RIMS Regulation, 2014. 34. This Court further finds that so far as the advertisement for the post of Tutor on ‘tenure post’ is concerned, the same was in terms of the RIMS Regulations of 2014 and was not in conflict with the provisions of the RIMS Act 2002. 34. This Court further finds that so far as the advertisement for the post of Tutor on ‘tenure post’ is concerned, the same was in terms of the RIMS Regulations of 2014 and was not in conflict with the provisions of the RIMS Act 2002. The argument of the writ petitioners that the advertisement for post of Tutor for a period of three years was contrary to Clause 8 and 19 of the RIMS Regulations, 2014 and Section 6(xii) of RIMS Act 2002 is devoid of any merits since no such provision has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners to show that there was any impediment in the Dental Council of India Act, Rules and Regulations which disentitled RIMS/ State Government to provide appointment of Tutors for a tenure of three years only. This Court is of the considered view that the reference to the Rules and Regulations of the Dental Council of India has been made in RIMS Act of 2002 and also in the Regulations of 2014 and these are essentially for prescribing the required qualification for appointment and nothing more. So far as the creation of posts and providing for the appointment of Tutors for fixed tenure is concerned, it is essentially the prerogative of the RIMS/ State Government. Even the Dental Council of India (respondent no. 4) has taken a stand in the counter affidavit that the issue as to whether the post of Tutor should be a ‘tenure post’ or a ‘permanent post’ is beyond the scope and purview of the Dental Council of India as the Dental Council of India is neither the paymaster nor a cadre controlling authority of the staff of RIMS. This Court is of the considered view that Clause 10 of Schedule III of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 is neither in conflict with Section 6 (xii) of the RIMS Act, 2002 nor in conflict with the other regulations including Regulation 8 of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 nor in conflict with any provision of Dental Council of India Act, Rules and Regulations and accordingly Clause 10 of Schedule III of the RIMS Regulation, 2014 is held valid and the matter calls for no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 35. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, W.P. (S) No. 688 of 2022 and L.P.A. No. 423 of 2022 are dismissed. 36. 35. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, W.P. (S) No. 688 of 2022 and L.P.A. No. 423 of 2022 are dismissed. 36. I.A. No. 9174 of 2022 for status quo is also dismissed.