Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1762
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Nitin Jamdar, CJ
G.ramesh Babu - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Original Petition | O.A. No.180/00745/2017
Decided On : 01-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : K. Jayakumar
For the Respondent: T.V. Vinu
IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial review in contractual employment is limited; no absolute right to contract extension exists.
Headnote:
(A) National Institute of Fashion Technology Act, 2006 - Terms of employment and contractual appointments - Judicial review permissible in cases of mala fide or irrational action - Contractual employee's right to extension not absolute. (Paras 6 , 9 )
(B) Employment Law - Burden of proof for mala fide lies on the employee - Adverse performance ratings can justify non-renewal of contract. (Paras 8 , 9 )
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner was appointed on a contract basis and later terminated. The Tribunal dismissed his applications, citing lack of qualifications and performance issues.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's decision was upheld, confirming no legal right to contract extension.
Issues: Whether the denial of contract extension was arbitrary or malicious.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no evidence of mala fide and upheld the Tribunal's findings regarding performance and contractual obligations.
Result: Original Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenged termination and non-renewal of contract. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding contract extension. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on contractual rights and performance. (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. ratio decidendi on lack of vested rights in contract extension. (Para 9) |
| 5. final ruling dismissing the petition. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Nitin Jamdar, C.J.
By way of this Original Petition, the Petitioner/Original Applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 31 July 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in O.A. No.180/00745/2017, and the consequential orders relieving the Petitioner from service on 3 August 2018 and terminating him with effect from 6 August 2018.
2. The Petitioner was appointed as the Joint Director in the National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), Kannur, on 6 December 2013, on contract basis for a period of three years. His contract was subsequently extended till 5 September 2017. Thereafter, his contract was not extended. The Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, by filing O.A. No.180/01137/2014, challenging the non consideration of his application for extension. During the pendency of the original application, the Petitioner was terminated from service. Challenging the order of termination, the Petitioner filed O.A. No.180/00745/2017.
3. The Tribunal initially stayed the termination order and directed the Respondents to retain the Petitioner in service until further orders. Thereafter, both the applications were heard together and dismissed by a common order dated 31 July 2018. O.A. No.180/01137/2014 was dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner did not possess the required qualification and that there was no error in the action of the Respondent. After the dismissal of O.A. No.180/00745/2017, the Petitioner was relieved from service with effect from 3 August 2018. Thereafter, a letter dated 6 August 2018 was issued by the Registrar, NIFT, terminating the services of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Tribunal, the Petitioner has filed this Original Petition.
4. The Director of NIFT, Kannur, has filed a counter affidavit dated 19 January 2019 on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5.
5. We have heard Mr. K. Jayakumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, and Mr. T.V. Vinu, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondents.
6. The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner relied upon the notification issued by the NIFT dated 11 April 2012 under the National Institute of Fashion Technology Act, 2006, laying down the terms and conditions of employees on long-term contracts. The notification states that the appointing authority may appoint any person on long-term contract on terms and conditions as specified by the Board for a period not exceeding three years and that the appointing authority may renew the contract for a further period subject to satisfactory performance and the requirements of the institute. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that despite the fact that the contractual period was extended for a short duration twice and there were favourable remarks in the service records of the Petitioner, only because the Petitioner filed an original application, unsatisfactory remarks regarding his service were subsequently entered and it was recommended that the Petitioner was not entitled to a further extension. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that it was out of malice that the contract was not renewed and the impugned order came to be passed. It was submitted that the Respondent – State instrumentality ought to have acted fairly, and that judicial review in matters of contractual appointments is permissible if the action is mala fide, arbitrary, or irrational. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GRIDCO Limited and Another v. Sri. Sadananda Doloi and Others, (2011) 15 SCC 16. The learn
