Contractual employees appointed for specific projects do not have a right to regularization or absorption in permanent positions, as per established Supreme Court precedents.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, 1865 emanate from the judgment and order dated 17.09.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in captioned writ petitions being Special Civil Application No. 11127 of 2003 and allied matters, wherein the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant-Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited to treat the respondents-employees (original petitioners) as permanent employees with effect from the date of institution of the petition and also to grant all consequential benefits to them and also to consider their absorption in other departments in terms of the policy.

2. All the respondents-employees were appointed on contractual basis pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1996. The advertisement specifically mentions that the persons mentioned therein are to be appointed on fixed period of contractual basis in Kalptaru Departmental Stores. It appears that thereafter, the appointment orders have been issued by the appellant-Corporation appointing the respondents for a fixed period initially for two years upto 1998 on a lump sum consolidated salary. Thereafter, it appears that their contractual period was extended and ultimately, by the order dated 27.08.2002, their contracts were extended for the last time i.e. from 01.09.2002 to 31.08.2003. It appears that thereafter, the respondent-employees filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 10852 of 2003 seeking regularization of service. By the interim order dated 31.07.2003, this Court restrained the appellant-Corporation from terminating their services. Thereafter, this Court (learned Single Judge) modified the interim order on 28.04.2004 to the effect that the service of the respondents-employees will not be terminated without due process of law during the pendency of the writ petition. It appears that thereafter, the respondents-employees, who were appointed under the Kalptaru Departmental Stores were posted in the District Supply Office in Mamlatdar Office at various places.

3. On 27.06.2014, their services were terminated, which was assailed by filing Civil Applications in pending writ petition. By the order dated 17.09.2014, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant-Corporation to regularize the services. The same is subject matter of challenge in the present appeals.

4. Mr. Sahil Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-Corporation at the outset, has submitted that the respondents-employees were specifically appointed on a fixed period on contractual basis in view of the advertisement, which was issued in 1996 for the post, as mentioned in the advertisement for Kalptaru Departmental Stores, which was in nine different places in the State of Gujarat. It is submitted that such Kalptaru Departmental Stores were opened at various places and the present litigation is only confined to the Vadodara Kalptaru Stores. It is submitted that this Kalptaru Departmental Stores were only opened with a view to take the necessary public distribution system in the State of Gujarat.

5. Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate has submitted that all the stores are closed by now. It is submitted that the Kalptaru Departmental Stores at Vadodara had incurred losses in all these years and hence, they were constrained to close this store, after taking necessary approval. It is submitted that all these respondents-employees were appointed on contractual basis in these stores and hence, they cannot be ordered to be regularized or absorbed in regular posts, as they were only appointed for specific purpose for manning the Kalptaru Departmental Stores.

6. Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate has submitted that for all these years, the respondents-employees have continued under the interim order passed by this Court and hence, as per the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, they cannot be regularized on the posts that too of the Corporation merely, because the