Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, N.SENTHILKUMAR, JJ.
University of Madras - Appellant
Versus
Dr.S.Ravindran – Respondent
W.A.No.1607 of 2021 and CMP.No.10019 of 2021
Decided on : 05-07-2024
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellant : Mr.A.S.Vijayaragavan
For the Respondent: Mr.Thomas T.Jacob, Mr.D.Ravichander Special Government Pleader [Higher Education]
IMPORTANT POINT
Mere contract employment does not confer rights to regularization without a sanctioned post, and courts cannot direct the creation of posts.
Headnote:
Employment - Medical Officer - Article 226 - The court discussed the principles of regularization and the necessity of sanctioned posts, emphasizing that mere contract appointments do not confer rights to regularization without government sanction.
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent was appointed as a Medical Officer on a contract basis without a sanctioned post. The appointment was extended periodically, but the respondent sought regularization, which the University denied due to the lack of a sanctioned post.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ court erred in directing the government to sanction a post, as this fell outside the scope of judicial review. The absence of a sanctioned post meant the first respondent could not claim regularization.
Issues: Whether the first respondent is entitled to regularization of service as a Medical Officer despite the absence of a sanctioned post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without a sanctioned post, a contract employee cannot claim regularization, and the creation of posts is the prerogative of the employer, not subject to judicial direction.
Result: The order impugned is set aside, and the Writ Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 06.05.2021 passed in W.P.No.27439 of 2017.
The first respondent was appointed as Medical Officer on contract basis vide letter dated 26.12.2006. The appointment was made on consolidated pay of Rs.12,000/- Per month for a period of one year. The terms and conditions stipulated under the contractual appointment reads as under:
"1. You shall submit the duplicate copy of this appointment order within seven days on receipt of this communication duly signed indicating your acceptance of the offer of appointment.
2. You shall report for duty to the Registrar forthwith.
3. Your service in the University shall take effect from the date of your joining duty.
4. On your satisfactory performance in the first years, as reported by the Registrar, your extension for the remaining period will be considered by the Vice-Chancellor. In any exigencies, it shall be the power of the Syndicate to dispense with your services as Medical Officer.
5. You shall devote whole time to the duties of your office and shall perform such duties as furnished hereunder besides other directives issued by the authorities from time to time and generally render such assistance as may be desired by the Vice-Chancellor/Registrar in the performance of your official duties.
(a) The Medical Officer shall be required to be present at the University Medical Care Centre of the Chepauk Campus, from 10 a.m. to 5.45 p.m; on all working days. During this time of work she shall provide Medical advise for the staff and students who visit Medical Care Centre for consultation.
(b) Weekly once to each campus hostel for 2 hours outpatient service."
2. Mr.A.S.Vijayaragavan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/University would submit that there is no sanctioned post of Medical Officer in Madras University. The first respondent was appointed on contract basis to cater the needs of the students, teaching staff and non-teaching staff working in the University campus.
3. The service of the first respondent has been extended periodically. Subsequently, the benefit of time scale of pay was granted to the first respondent. The first respondent submitted a representation on 12.03.2012 seeking regularisation of his services in the sanctioned post of Medical Officer. The University replied on 18.04.2012 stating that regularisation is not feasible, since the first respondent was appointed on contract basis and there is no sanction for the post of Medical Officer.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the first respondent is not continuing in service as of now. However, he continued in service till the year 2017 on contract basis. The tenure of contract was extended on terms and conditions. Therefore, the writ order granting the benefit of regularization is running counter to the legal principles settled.
5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the post of Medical Officer has not been sanctioned in Madras University.
6. Mr.Thomas T.Jacob, the learned Counsel for the first respondent relied on the Official communication of University of Madras dated 22.08.2017, wherein a reference has been made about the decision of the Syndicate for regularization of services. However, such regularization of services are subject to sanctioning of post by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Government of Tamil Nadu is sanctioning grant to pay salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff. Unless the Government sanction the post of Medical Officer, University cannot grant regularization.
7. Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent would submit that no post of Medical Officer has been sanctioned to Madras University. Mere contract appointment would not confer any right to seek regularization of service. Therefore, the writ court has committed an error. The writ Court directed th
