Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 790
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURYA KANT & P.B. BAJANTHRI, JJ.
Shilpa Jindal & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench Chandigarh and others - Respondents
CWP No. 16157 of 2015 & 6251 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 29-4-2016
For the Petitioners:Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No.16157 of 2015).
Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No. 6251 of 2016)
For the Respondents:Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (in CWP No.16157 of 2015) and for respondents No. 4 and 5 ( (in CWP No. 6251 of 2016)
Regularisation cannot be sought based on the length of contractual service, and there must be a legal right for regularisation in the absence of statutory provisions. Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment, and the government cannot regularise appointments made contrary to the rules of recruitment.
Headnote:
Regularisation - Contract Appointment - AICTE (Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Degree) Regulations, 2010; Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology, Chandigarh Administration, Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Assistant Professor in Applied Sciences and Senior Librarian (Group 'A' Post) Recruitment Rules, 2012 - 2010 Regulations, 2012 Rules, Advertisement dated 20.9.2013
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regularisation of her services as an Associate Professor, challenging the validity of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner was initially appointed on a contract basis as a Lecturer and later as an Assistant Professor. The petitioner contended that her appointment was made in compliance with the Constitutional Scheme and that she was entitled to regularisation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment was on a contract basis with the condition that it would be till regular recruitment through UPSC. The court held that the petitioner cannot seek regularisation based on the length of her contractual service and that there was no legal right for regularisation in the absence of statutory provisions. The court also emphasized that regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment and that the government cannot regularise appointments made contrary to the rules of recruitment. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the AICTE Regulations, 2010, the 2012 Recruitment Rules, and the advertisement dated 20.9.2013.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the petitioner's claim for regularisation, the compliance with the Constitutional Scheme in the appointment process, and the applicability of the AICTE Regulations and the 2012 Recruitment Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that regularisation cannot be sought based on the length of contractual service and that there was no legal right for regularisation in the absence of statutory provisions. The court emphasized that regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment and that the government cannot regularise appointments made contrary to the rules of recruitment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the AICTE Regulations, 2010, the 2012 Recruitment Rules, and the advertisement dated 20.9.2013.
P.B. Bajanthri, J.
In CWP No. 16157 of 2015, the petitioner has questioned the validity of order dated 10.7.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'Tribunal') in O.A.No. 060/00230/2014 and further prayed for direction to the respondents to regularise her services on the post of Associate Professor with effect from the date of her initial appointment with consequential benefits.
2. The 5th respondent advertised the posts of Lecturers to fill up on contract basis. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Lecturer on contract basis on 30.7.2003. It was made clear to the petitioner that her appointment on contract basis was till regular recruitment from UPSC. Since no regular recruitment was made, consequently, petitioner's appointment was renewed from time to time.
3. In the month of December 2008, the 5th respondent advertised to fill up the posts of Assistant Professor in Electronics and Electrical Communication Engineering on contract basis. The petitioner applied for that post and she was selected and appointed to the post of Assistant Professor on 16.1.2009. Thereafter, petitioner resigned from the post of Lecturer on 19.1.2009. When things stood thus, on 22.1.2010, the AICTE (Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Degree) Regulations, 2010 (for short 2010 Regulations'), were notified, by which the existing cadre of Teachers in Engineering Colleges stood upgraded. The post of Assistant Professor was upgraded to that of Associate Professor. The incumbent Assistant Professors who had completed 3 years of service as Assistant Professors were to be upgraded as Associate Professors with immediate effect. Those who have not completed three years of service, were placed in a special pay scale till completion of stipulated period of 3 years. The petitioner was also re-designated as Senior Assistant Professor and was held entitled for re-designation as Associate professor w.e.f. 19.1.2012, the date on which she would be completing 3 years of service.
4. In the year 2012, Recruitment Rules, called Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology, Chandigarh Administration, Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Assistant Professor in Applied Sciences and Senior Librarian (Group 'A' Post) Recruitment Rules, 2012 (for short 2012 Rules'), were notified. Under these Rules, the posts mentioned above are to be filled up through UPSC.
5. On 20.9.2013, amongst others, the posts of Associate Professor were notified to be filled up. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the said advertisement approached the Tribunal, questioning the validity of notification dated 20.9.2013, as also the 2012 Rules, 2010 Regulations and, further sought a direction to the respondents to regularise her services in the cadre of Associate Professor. The Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 10.7.2015 rejected the petitioner's OA being devoid of any merit. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the present petition has been filed.
6. Her learned counsel contended that the petitioner is entitled to regularisation/absorption in the post of Associate Professor for the reason that her initial appointment on contract basis was made in the absence of any Rules of Recruitment governing the post. The post was duly advertised, therefore, there was compliance of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In other words, due selection procedure was complied with and it is in conformity with the Constitutional Scheme, hence the denial of regularisation of her services is wholly unjustified. It was further contended that petitioner's appointment was not through backdoor entry nor she is ineligible to hold the post, and there is no legal impediment in the way of regularisation of her services. Thus the Tribunal has not appreciated the petitioner's case while rejecting petitioner's O.A.
7. Learned counsel urged that
