IMPORTANT POINT
Where employees are recruited for a particular project and when the project comes to an end, services of the employees also come to an end. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them.

Headnote:Service Jurisprudence-Panel of 25 posts of Assistant Project Managers-Documents stating in clear terms that when the project comes to an end, the employees who are working in the project will not get any vested rights-Writ petition for regularisation-Allowed by High Court-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right? (No, it misread the documents)-Appeal allowed.
       Held : Having perused the impugned order in the light of the documents referred to above and keeping in view the rival contentions urged on either side, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court cannot be sustained for the reasons more than one. (Para 9)
       From these documents it is clear that the respondents were never recruited as against regularly sanctioned posts on a regular basis. Reading of these documents and the contentions raised on either side go to show that the appointments of the respondents were temporary under the Million Well Scheme afore-mentioned. When the work of the scheme had come to an end, the respondents were not entitled to claim regularisation of their services. Even though their services were continued after 31-3-1994 by virtue of an interim order passed in the Writ Petition, they cannot claim benefit of regularisation of their services as a matter of right. (Para 10)
       In clear and certain terms it is stated that when the project comes to close, the employees who are working in the project will not get any vested right. In other words, once the project comes to an end, services of the employees also come to an end. The other decisions cited by the learned counsel more or less are to the same effect. In view of what is stated above, the impugned order, in our view, cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is set aside. The appeal is allowed, but with no order as to costs. (Paras 11 & 12)

ORDER

This appeal is directed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court. In short and substance, the facts leading to filing of this appeal are:

The appellant-Corporation took a decision to prepare a panel of 25 posts of Assistant Project Managers. Pursuant to the said decision the Corporation wrote a letter to the Vice Chancellor, Agricultural University on 9-11-1990 seeking names of B.Sc. (Agr.) graduates for the purpose. Thereafter, letters were issued to the candidates for the purpose of training of one year for the Million Wells Scheme with a fixed stipend of Rs. 1200/- per month. The State Government on 22-2-1993 gave sanction for creation of 30 new and temporary posts of Assistant Manager under a new World Bank Project, i.e., U.P. Sodic Land Reclamation Project. The candidates who were selected, were thereafter appointed as Assistant Managers after serving for sometime. Out of 32 candidates selected 6 persons approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition seeking regularisation of their services with a grant of regular pay-scales. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and gave direction to regularise their services and also to grant pay-scale applicable to the post of Assistant Manager. Initially the Writ Petition was allowed in the absence of representation by the Corporation, but after hearing on the application made for recalling the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the same order was passed upholding the direction given for regularisation on grant of pay-scales. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant-Corporation filed Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench did not find any merit in the appeal and in that view, concurring with the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissed the Special Appeal. Hence this appeal.

2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we think it appropriate to refer to certain documents. The notes and order dated 2/11/1990 prepared by the Director of Corporation, on which a claim is made by the respondents herein, reads thus:

"Work is proposed to be assigned. Therefore, actually only 13 employees would be available for the work of the Asstt. Project Managers while under the Million Wells Scheme a total number of 16 employees are required. In this way 3 employees of Grade-3 would have to be appointed. Keeping in view that in future also other projects may be received by the Corporation and several employees of this grade may be required on a short notice, it is proposed that by inviting names from the Agriculture Universities or by advertising a penal of 25 persons be prepared for appointment of trainees. The posts would be filled according to the need from this panel. On being available the panel of trainees, the advantage would be that the work of the employees appointed from within this panel shall be judged for one year as trainees and (later on) for one year on probation and on finding the work satisfactory and on the requirement they would be absorbed in the corporation otherwise the option not to appoint them would remain open.

On the above points Ka, Kha, Ga, Ghha the marked proposal for approval please."

3. It appears, pursuant to the said note and order, the General Manager of the Corporation addressed letters to few institutions and universities seeking names of the candidates for recruitment to the post of Assistant Project Manager, (Group-3). One such letter reads as follows:

"Sir,

In this Corporation around 25 posts of Assistant Project Managers (Group-3) under pay scale of Rs. 1230-2080 are likely to be created in future. The management of the Corporation has decided that for the purposes of recruitment on those posts, a panel of B.Sc. (Agr.) Agricultural graduates be prepared. The selected candidates will be kept on training for one year and thereafter on probation for another year.

Therefore, you are requested to send a list of agricultural graduates B.Sc. (Agr.) alongwith

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 386

IMPORTANT POINTWhere employees are recruited for a particular project and when the project comes to an end, services of the employees also come to an end. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where employees are recruited for a particular project and when the project comes to an end, services of the employees also come to an end. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them.