Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN MONGA, J.
Shalom Akhai - Appellant
Versus
Director, PEC University of Technology and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 27485 of 2016, 414 of 2017
Decided On : 27-05-2019
S.P. Arora, Adv., Himanshu Arora, Adv., Ashwani Talwar, Adv., Akshay Bansal, Adv., Tribhuwan Singla, Adv., D.S. Chahal, Adv.
The main legal point established is that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees, and the performance of contractual employees is a guiding principle for the grant of extensions.
Headnote:
Contractual Employees - Extension of Contract - Hargurpartap Singh vs. State of Punjab - SLP (Civil) No. 8745 of 2003, Baljit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab - CWP No. 7637 of 2016
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lecturer on a contract basis, sought a writ to prohibit the university from replacing him with another set of ad-hoc employees. The university had refused to extend his contract, citing poor performance and had initiated a fresh selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the university's action of replacing the petitioner with another contractual employee was against the law as laid down by the Supreme Court. The court directed the university to consider the petitioner for appointment on the contractual post in place of the candidate who was appointed in the new selection process but has since resigned, as per the waiting list.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of replacing contractual employees and the consideration of performance in extending contracts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees. It also emphasized that the performance of contractual employees is a guiding principle for the grant of extensions.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed, and the university was directed to consider the petitioner for appointment on the contractual post in place of the candidate who was appointed in the new selection process but has since resigned, as per the waiting list.
JUDGMENT :
Arun Monga, J.
By this order, I intend to dispose of above mentioned two writ petitions, as similar issues are involved therein. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 27485 of 2016.
2. Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ, prohibiting the respondents from making fresh appointments on contractual basis by replacing one set of ad-hoc employees with another set of ad-hoc employees stated to be in violation of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Hargurpartap Singh vs. State of Punjab and another in SLP (Civil) No. 8745 of 2003 as followed by this Court in Baljit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab in CWP No. 7637 of 2016.
3. The factual matrix of the case briefly is that the petitioner was hired as Lecturer on contract basis in the year 2010 for an initial period of six months in the Mechanical Engineering Department of the respondent-University. Thereafter, his term was extended from time to time for a period of six months each time with notional break of one day in between. In the year 2014 he was transferred from the Mechanical Engineering Department to the Metallurgy Engineering Department. The last of the extensions was given to the petitioner for the period from 04.07.2016 to 23.12.2016.
4. During this period respondent No.1 issued an advertisement dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure P-6) inviting candidates for walk-in interviews for the same very post of Lecturer on contract basis. The petitioner was verbally informed by the Deputy Director of the University that he was not being given further extension. He was told to apply afresh by participating in the interview process. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
5. In its return, respondent-University stated that the petitioner had been appointed on contract basis. In his joining letter dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P-1), it has been clearly mentioned that his appointment can be terminated without any notice in case of misconduct. It is contended that the petitioner vide letter dated 24.07.2014 (Annexure R-1/2), was informed that he was being granted extension subject to the condition that he will improve his performance in the coming semesters. However, the petitioner failed to improve and was continuously graded 'below average' in the student feedback.
6. In the circumstances, respondent-University did not grant extension beyond 23.12.2016 to the petitioner, owing to his poor performance. He was informed that he would have to participate as a fresh candidate as per advertisement dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure P-6). It is contended that the petitioner was not found suitable in the selection process and persons namely Mr. Manoj Kumar and Mr. Sumit Taneja, who were found more suitable had been appointed.
7. It is submitted that vide advertisement 03.06.2015 (Annexure R-1/3), regular appointments to the post of Assistant Professor had been advertised but the selection process had been put on hold by an interim order dated 21.01.2016 (Annexure R-1/4), passed by this Court in CWP No. 1208 of 2016. Lastly, it was submitted that the conduct/performance of an employee is the guiding principle for grant of extension to contractual employees. The law laid down in Hargurpartap Singh vs. State of Punjab and another bearing SLP (Civil) No. 8745 of 2003 and in Baljit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab bearing CWP No. 7637 of 2016 is subject to the performance of the contractual employees.
8. In the replication filed by the petitioner, it has been contended that the extensions granted to him, pursuant to the letter dated 24.07.2014 (Annexure R-1/2), were without any riders which indicates that the performance of the petitioner had improved. It is further stated that nothing has been placed on record by the respondent-University to show that the performance of the petitioner was subpar and that his poor performance was ever considered while refusing to grant him extension.
9. The petitioner averred that he had challenged advertisement d
