Point of Law:
It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time – That being so, we are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was unable to show any statutory or other right to have his contract extended beyond 30th June, 2010.

ORDER :

A.J. SHASTRI, J.

1. Both these Letters Patent Appeals are submitted under clause 15 of Letters Patent feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 08.03.2019 passed in respective petitions. Since common questions of facts and law have arisen, upon the request of learned counsels appearing for respective sides, both the appeals are being taken up conjointly for disposal by the present order.

2. So far as Letters Patent Appeal No. 835 of 2019 is concerned, arising out of Special Civil Application No.3460 of 2019. The background facts of the said petition was that the appellant – original petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on an ad hoc basis from 01.11.2004 to 30.09.2005. The said appointment was extended from time to time and the last extension was made on 02.01.2019 ending on 31.12.2019. By this time, for filling up the post on a regular basis, an advertisement was issued by the respondent-university on 23.12.2018 regarding the recruitment process for various posts in university including this post. As per the advertisement, 15 Lower Division Clerk posts were to be filled up from amongst candidates with an age limit of 25 years.

2.1 It is the case of the appellant – original petitioner that right from 2004 onward, when the appellant – original petitioner worked on the sanctioned post on a contractual basis, the respondent-university has never taken any initiative to see that the length of service be regularized through appropriate steps. The appellant – original petitioner has spent a substantial period at the position and though as many as 36 posts have been made available, the respondent-university is bent upon recruiting another person in place of him. This is despite the petitioner having completed more than 14 years to the utmost satisfaction of respondent – university. Though the appellant – original petitioner is fully eligible to the position, no attention has been paid to his position constraining him to seek relief from this Court by filing Special Civil Application. The relief clause contained in paragraph No.12 is reproduced hereinafter:

“12(a) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order to the Respondent for regularization of the appointment of the petitioner and further to pay him all the available benefits which are paid to regular employees including pay scale benefits.

(b) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to direct the Respondent to allow the petitioner to continue to work for the Respondent and further to direct the Respondent to pay regular salary against such work pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice.

(c) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to direct the Respondent not to remove the petitioner and his family from the staff quarters provided by the Respondent pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice.

(d) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to stay the operation and implementation of the advertisement dated 23.12.2018, bearing No. 09-2018-2019 which is annexed at Annexure E and recruitment / selection process only qua the Lower Divisional Clerks posts.

(e) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED pass such other and further orders, which may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

3. Similar is the case of the other appellant – original petitioner of Letters Patent Appeal No.836 of 2019 which is generated out of Special Civil Application No.3463 of 2019 there also, the appellant – original petitioner was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on an ad hoc basis from 01.03.2013 to 31.12.2013. The said ad hoc tenure came to be extended from time to time and the last extension was made on 02.01.2019, which ended on 31.12.2019. At that time, an advertisement came to be issued by respondent – university for filling up the posts, despite the fact that the appellant – original petitioner has served diligently to the satisfaction of respondent - univers