Temporary or casual employment does not confer legal rights to regularization; adherence to proper recruitment processes is mandatory for permanent appointments.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. This instant writ petition, filed by the Petitioner, is the second round of litigation seeking regularisation of her service along with consequential benefits.

2. The brief facts of the writ petitioner is that she was appointed as a Secretarial Assistant at Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta (in short IIMC) on 18th December, 2007 with due approval from the Ministry of Human Resource Development (in short MHRD). Her appointment was initially on contractual basis for a period of two years i.e. from 18.12.2007 to 17.12.2009. Thereafter, her contractual appointment was renewed time to time without any break in service till 25.12.2018. During this period, the Writ Petitioner discharged her duties alongside other regular employees.

3. However, on 16th August, 2018, IIMC issued a fresh letter of engagement effective from 1^st January, 2018 upto December 31,2018 which arbitrarily and retrospectively nullified her previous service. Being aggrieved by the said engagement letter dated 16.08.2018, the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 24205/2018 with prayer to regularise the service from the date of initial appointment, in accordance with law.

4. The said writ petition was heard and disposed of by Co- Ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.12.2018 with following direction as inter alia: -

“Accordingly, the said impugned proposal dated 16th August, 2018 stands withdrawn and cancelled.

Mr. Bari, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitioner has been serving the respondent Institute for about 11 years and her performance has been impeccable, she should be considered for permanent absorption.

I grant liberty to the petitioner to make a prayer for permanent absorption to the respondent no. 6 in course of tomorrow.

The respondent no. 6 shall take a reasoned decision on such representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably by 25th December, 2018, since that is the date when the contractual tenure of the petitioner expires. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner on the day itself.

Needless to say, that the performance of the petitioner over last 11 years shall be considered by the respondent and also given the fact that she is 59 years old, it is expected that the respondent no. 6 shall consider the petitioner’s case sympathetically.

No useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending. Since no affidavit has been called for, allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted by the respondents.

WP No. 24205 of 2018 is, accordingly, disposed of.”

5. In pursuant to the said direction passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the writ petitioner submitted her representation with a prayer for permanent absorption in service on 14.12.2018. The said representation was duly received by the office of Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta. Prior to that, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench was also duly communicated upon the respondent concerned. The said communication was received by respective office.

6. The time limit granted by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench for taking appropriate action expired on 25.12.2018. However, no decision was taken by the respondent no. 6 in terms of order passed by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench within the stipulated period. On 24.12.2018, the Acting Director of IIM Calcutta informed that the representation dated 14.12.2018 had been placed before the Board of Governors for consideration and that the decision of the Board shall be communicated without any indication and/or mentioning regarding further continuation of service to the petitioner as her tenure of service was expiring on 25.12.2018. No reference was made regarding the continuation of the service beyond 25.12.2018, which marked the end of her contractual tenure. Despite the impending deadline, no reasoned decision was communicated to th