Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, R. BANUMATHI
SITIKANATHA MISHRA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 234-245 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.1645-1646 of 2013)
Decided On : 9-01-2015
(b) Service law – Lien – Instantly, “regularization” not referring to any irregular appointments sought to be regularized in violation of the Rules – Appellant’s was the case of regularization on account of subsequent retrospective sanction – Initial appointment was not irregular or against Rules – Competent authority needs to consider the issue of lien in this light and take a fresh decision. (Para 17, 20)
(2013) 11 SCC 357; (2009) 4 SCC 700; (2014) 2 SCC 609 – Relied upon
(2006) 10 SCC 84 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The question raised in this appeal is whether the appointment of the appellant to the post of Professor in the Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management, an autonomous body under the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India from 27th January, 1997 could be treated to be on regular basis and whether his appointment to the post of Director in the same Institute with effect from 8th June, 2006, on contractual basis, had the effect of relinquishing his lien to the post of Professor, in absence of his resignation and in absence of filling up of the said post of Professor.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant’s appointment regularized retrospectively. He cannot be denied benefits thereof merely because he joined as Director in the meanwhile.
Result: Appeal allowed. Competent authority directed to take a fresh look on question of lien.
JUDGMENT
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been preferred against the final judgment and order dated 27th March, 2012 in Writ Petition No.2331 of 2010 and order dated 10th October, 2012 in Review Petition No.212 of 2012 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
3. The question raised for our consideration is whether the appointment of the appellant to the post of Professor in the Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management (“IITTM”), an autonomous body under the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India from 27th January, 1997 could be treated to be on regular basis and whether his appointment to the post of Director in the same Institute with effect from 8th June, 2006, on contractual basis, had the effect of relinquishing his lien to the post of Professor, in absence of his resignation and in absence of filling up of the said post of Professor.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The IITTM issued an advertisement dated 25th October, 1996 inviting applications for various posts, including the post of Professor in Business Studies. The appellant applied and was duly selected for the post on the basis of interview and appointment letter dated 4th January, 1997 was issued to him. He joined service on 27th January, 1997. According to the appointment letter his appointment was to be on contract initially for three years. The documents on record show that the IITTM is a society and as per rules and regulations, the Board of Governors (“BOG”), inter alia, comprises of Minister of Tourism, Minister of State for Tourism, Secretary, Ministry of Tourism, Director General (Tourism) and various other functionaries who are mostly nominees of the Central Government. Appointments in the IITTM were initially made on contractual basis for the technical reason in absence of formal sanction of posts which issue was pending with the Ministry. Pending such sanction, the incumbents who were duly selected, after advertisement, selection process continued on contractual basis at times even without formal extension letters. In pursuance of directions of the Ministry of Tourism, Staff Inspection Unit (“SIU”) of the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, conducted assessment of manpower requirement of the IITTM in the year 2001 and submitted its report in the year 2002 recommending regularization of 68 posts which included the post of Professor held by the appellant. Finally, it was on 31st October, 2006 that the Central Government took a decision to regularize the services of the said 68 incumbents. The decision of the Central Government was ratified by the BOG in its 31st Meeting held on 4th December, 2006. As already mentioned, the recommendations of SIU were made earlier and were duly approved by the BOG in its meeting held on 18th September, 2002. Accordingly, a formal letter dated 15th January, 2007 was issued to the effect that services of the appellant were regularized in the post of Professor in IITTM with effect from the date of initial joining that is 27th January, 1997. In the meanwhile, advertisement dated 25th March, 2006 was issued by the IITTM for recruitment to the post of Director on contract basis for three years with possibility of extension by two years. Persons holding posts on regular basis in prescribed pay scale having three years of service were also eligible. The candidates in service were to submit their applications through their employers. Minimum 18 years of experience in a recognized educational institution with at least three years of administrative experience was also required. The appellant applied to the said post and was selected and appointed vide letter dated 8th June, 2006. On expiry of period of three years, his appointment was further extended till he handed over the charge on 31st December, 2009. Thereafter he claimed to continue as Professor. However, as per decision of Ministry of Tourism conveyed by the letter dated 28th January, 2010, the appellant was info
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
