Point of Law: appellants have been appointed after following selection procedure against an open advertisement, and therefore, discontinuing them from service by treating them to be contractual employees is contrary to public policy and amounts to clear exploitation. The hire and fire policy of the University is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1 By means of these appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, both the appellants have prayed for setting aside order passed by learned Single Judge dated 08.10.2020 and to further quash and set aside the termination/relieving order dated 08.10.2020 passed by the respondent University i.e. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University (hereinafter referred to as “the University”).

2. The present appellants were appointed on contractual basis for a period of 11 months on non-teaching post on completely ad hoc/temporary basis against an advertisement dated 31.08.2016. They were appointed as Assistants vide orders dated 06.06.2017 and 03.07.2017 for a fixed salary of Rs.12,000/- on ad hoc/temporary basis for the period of contract. Thereafter on 25.05.2018 they were given a further appointment for a fixed period against fixed salary of Rs.13,200/-.

3. The competent body of the University in its meeting held on 09.10.2019 and 24.10.2019 took a decision to fill up the ad hoc/temporary contractual non-teaching posts through outsourcing. This would result into discontinuance of the appellants. Further in continuation of the earlier meetings, the competent body of the University on 10.12.2019 is said to have taken decision to discontinue the appellants and other contractual employees. It is further stated that the Board of Management of the University vide resolutions dated 18.01.2020 and 24.01.2020 resolved to approve the earlier decisions of the Committee of the University dated 09.10.2019 and 10.12.2019. It is further case of the appellants that the University gave further appointment to the appellants vide letter dated 17.02.2020 for a fixed salary of Rs.13,200/-.

4. The appellants approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application Nos. 6981 and 6526 of 2020 challenging the decision of the Committee of the University and Board of Management dated 24.10.2019 and all subsequent decisions. After exchange of affidavits, learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 08.10.2020 dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.10.2020 the present appeals have been filed.

5. During the pendency of the appeals, the University issued an advertisement inviting e-tenders for engaging an outsourcing agency to provide non-teaching staff on temporary/contractual basis for the post of Assistant, Data Entry Operator, Clark cum Sahayak cum Computer Typist, etc. through outsourcing. Challenging the said advertisement dated 01.12.2020, the appellants preferred Civil Application No.1 of 2021 in both the appeals.

6. During the hearing of the Civil Applications, the learned counsels for the parties agreed that the main Letters Patent Appeals may be heard and decided rather than deciding the Civil Applications alone. Thus, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, we have heard the appeals. Learned counsels for the parties were given opportunity to provide their written briefs which also they have provided and we have perused the same.

7. We have heard Mr. I.H.Syed, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Meet Shah, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the University in both the appeals.

8. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the following findings:

[1] The writ petitioners – appellants were engaged on contractual basis as was clearly evident from the above judgment.

[2] The appellants having accepted such employment cannot claim as a matter of right that they were appointed against a post.

[3] The arguments of the petitioners that they had earlier worked from 2008 to 2017 and as such they had a right to be continued in employment had no legs to stand as the subsequent appointment w.e.f. 2017 was against an advertisement and would thus be as per the terms of the contract.

[4] There were disputed questions of facts as would be evident from the pleadings on record and as such the same could be examined only by a