A contractual employee does not have a vested right for seeking continuation of the contract, and claims for regularization may be rejected based on the terms and conditions of the appointment and legal precedents.

ORDER :

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a prayer for issuance of a writ or direction for setting aside the advertisement dated nil (Annexure P-8) by which the applications were invited for hiring the services of Law Officer on contractual basis and also for another prayer seeking direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to replace the petitioner from the post of Law Officer by any other contractual or temporary employee till any regular appointment.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Law Officer on contract basis in pursuance of an advertisement dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure P-2) and vide appointment letter dated 11.03.2020 (Annexure P-7) she was appointed as a Law Officer on contract basis for a period of one year from the date she assumes the charge. He submitted that one year of the petitioner is going to complete on 16.03.2021 and in the present petition she has challenged the advertisement Annexure P-8, whereby applications have been invited for hiring of Law Officer on contractual basis and has submitted that it is settled law that a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee and therefore, the advertisement was not in accordance with law and the petitioner cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the petitioner was selected by following a proper procedure, in the alternative she is also entitled for regularization.

4. Notice of the present writ petition was issued on 10.03.2021 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2-University had made a statement that so far as the impugned advertisement Annexure P-8 is concerned, the same has now been withdrawn by the University. However, so far as the issue with regard to the replacement of contractual employee with another set of contractual employee is concerned, time was granted to the learned counsel for seeking instructions in the matter and for filing the affidavit. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2-University by referring to the affidavit which has been filed by the University has submitted that the impugned advertisement Annexure P-8 has been withdrawn vide Annexure R1/1 and therefore, so far as that aspect is concerned, the writ petition has become infructuous.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that so far as the other aspect of the writ petition pertaining to replacement of a contractual employee with another set of contractual employee is concerned, it has been specifically stated in the affidavit that at present the University has no plan to appoint another Law Officer on contract basis and on the expiry of one year term of the petitioner, the petitioner has got no absolute right to continue on the post of Law Officer. The learned counsel further submitted that it has been stated in para 2 of the affidavit that there is no plan to appoint another Law Officer on contract basis and in addition to this he has instructions to say that no one will be appointed even on outsourcing basis. Para 2 of the aforesaid affidavit is reproduced as under:-

“2.That regarding replacement of the petitioner by another contract employee, at present the University has no plan to appoint another Law Officer on contract basis. But after expiry of her one year term of contract employment, the petitioner too has absolutely no right to continue on the post of Law Officer as the petitioner was appointed as Law Officer only for one year with a clear cut condition that the University would not be bound to re-engage her on contract after completion of the above term. The relevant Condition No.1 of the appointment order dated 11.03.2020 (P-7) is reproduced hereunder for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court: Terms & Conditions

1. She will not be a regular employee of the Unive