Point of Law: Non extension of the service contract cannot be termed as punitive in the garb of termination as there is no right vested in the petitioner to continue in the service of the respondent no. 2 on completion of the contract period and as such the action of the respondent no. 2 not to extend the contract period cannot be faulted.

JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Asim Pandya assisted by learned advocate Mr. Aaditya Bhatt for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat with learned advocate Ms. Disha Nanavati for respondent No. 2 through video conference.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. The Learned advocate Ms. Disha Nanavati waives notice of rule. Service of notice of Rule is dispensed with qua respondent nos. 1 and 3 and as the controversy involved in this petition is in narrow compass with the consent of the Learned advocates of both the sides, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. By this petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) Be pleased to declare that the constitution of the selection committee was not accordance with the applicable law and hence, the decision dated 30.5.2019, of the selection committee is void ab initio.

(B) Be pleased to direct the Respondents to constitute an unbiased selection committee in accordance with law, and to carry out the selection process for the post of Associate Professor afresh.

(C) Be pleased to declare that the decision is dated. 30.05.2019 and subsequent actions lastly culminating into the latter dated. 09.06.2021 of the respondents not to continue the petitioner even as Assistant Professor after 31st July, 2021 is actuated by mala-fide, victimization and unconstitutional violating Article 14, 16, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to regularize the services of the Petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor.

(D) Be pleased to declare that the non extension/termination of the Service of the Petitioner is punitive in the garb of the termination simpliciter.

(E) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal the respondent be directed to continue the petitioner as Assistant Professor on same terms with all eligible future entitlements.

(F) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal Your Lordships be pleased to suspend further implementation and operation of the order dated 07.01.2021, in continuance to the order passed on 30.05.2019, r/w 09.06.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the services of the petitioner are likely to end on 31.07.2021 and direct the Respondent No. 2 to maintain a status quo with regard to the services of the petitioner.

(G) Be pleased to pass such other and further reliefs in favor of the petitioner in the interest of Justice.”

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor Grade-I by the respondent no. 2-Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar (For short “IITGN”) as Assistant Professor in Earth Science as per terms and conditions attached with appointment letter dated 22.05.2017 on contract basis for two years.

4.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a world class highly trained skilled and well-decorated researcher and a teacher with international repute and he has established an entire Water Environment Technology and Geochemistry Lab at IITGN. The petitioner has also published various research papers and is recognised faculty in the field of Earth Science.

4.2 The petitioner is also having the Ph.D Degree from the University of Tokyo at Japan. It is the case of the petitioner that the advertisement issued by respondent no. 2 which is a running advertisement on the web site did not state that the appointment would be on contract basis. The petitioner, however accepted the appointment on the contract of two years with the hope that his service would be regularized by the respondent no. 2 by giving up his permanent service in Tezpur National University where he served from November 2010 to July 2017 and also paid Rs. 7,00,000/- in order to be released from the bond to allow him to join IITGN. On completion of the two years contract with the respondent no. 2 IITGN, the same was extended on 6.2.2019 for further two years.

4.3 According to the petitioner, pr