The court affirmed that employees in sanctioned posts with continuous service are entitled to regularization, emphasizing that contractual appointments for permanent posts are unjustified.

JUDGMENT :

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Challenge is to the order of the Writ Court dated 30.07.2024, in and by which, the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent seeking to quash the order of the second respondent dated 19.04.2023 and as a consequence direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment.

2. By the order impugned in the writ petition, a request of the petitioner for regularization and extension of service was held to be not feasible of compliance with a direction to the petitioner to employ herself through the University Approved out sourcing Agency, after a break of seven days from 01.04.2023 to 07.04.2023. The petitioner was employed as a Research Associate/Senior Research Investigator on a pay scale of Rs,9,300/- - 34,800/- + Grade pay of Rs.4,600/- on 20.09.2011. The notification calling for appointment was made on 04.08.2010 and the appointment was made after conducting a regular selection process.

3. The Agro Economic Research Centre in which the petitioner was appointed was established by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India, throughout the country and 15 Centres are functioning as of date. They were established in the Universities based on a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the second respondent University and the first respondent. Subsequently, the Agro Economic Research Centre, established under the Memorandum of Understanding was made a permanent Department of the University.

4. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, the staff, who were recruited for the purposes of its Agro Economic Research Centre would be treated on par with the permanent employees of the University. Claiming that she has been serving the Centre right from the date of her appointment and she has also been given annual increments and all other benefits on par with the regular employees and that her services have been extended year on year, the petitioner sought for regularization. Certain communications, issued by the first respondent requiring the University to regularize the services of the petitioner, were also relied upon by the petitioner. While things stood thus, by a communication dated 19.04.2023, the University while expressing its inability to regularize the services, directed the petitioner to employ herself through the University approved out sourcing agency, after a service break of 7 days from 01.04.2023 to 07.04.2023. It is this order which was subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition.

5. The petitioner contended that she having worked in the sanctioned post for more than 10 years on a regular scale of pay and the University having granted her increments as well as maternity leave treating her as a regular employee, her services should be regularized, inasmuch as the funding agency viz. the first respondent had also recommended regularization of the services of the petitioner.

6. This claim was resisted by the respondents. The first respondent would claim that the Agro Economic Research Centres were started in the year 1954 – 1955 as an Autonomous Institution and are functioning under the control of different Universities/Institutes. A Memorandum of Understanding was entered into with the University of Madras in the year 1969. While the activities of the Centre were funded by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India, viz. the first respondent in the Writ Petition, the Administrative control alone was with the University concerned. The Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India, was funding the Agro Economic Research Centres. On the communications dated 06.02.2018, 16.11.2018 and 24.11.2021, the first respondent took a stand that those communications were sent to the University only seeking clarification and the same would not confer any right on the petitioner.

7. The University filed a separate counter. While admitting the fact that the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis from 20.09.2011 and she has been s