The main legal point established in the judgment is that contractual employees are bound by the terms and conditions of their appointment, including the notice period for termination, and can be replaced by regular appointees.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. - Case has been heard through video conferencing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the order dated 8.11.2019 (Annexure A-1) passed by respondent No.3, order dated 7.11.2019 (Annexure A-2) passed by respondent No.4 and order dated 18.5.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.10 being illegal, unjust and arbitrary. The petitioners have also sought direction to the respondents by way of Mandamus, to allow the petitioners to continue in service as Programme Coordinators for the remaining period of three years from the date their services were illegally terminated by respondent No.4 or till the completion of the project and alternatively to direct respondents No.3 and 4 to pay them salary and other allowance along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the such remaining period.

The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.3-Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan is an autonomous body of Government of India and is headed by respondent No.2-Chairman, Board of Governing Body, Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan. Different posts were lying vacant in various Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathans through out the country. Accordingly, respondents No.2 and 3 engaged respondent No.4-Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd. (in short ‘BECIL) for recruitment of Programme Coordinators in Nehru Yuva Kendras across the country. Respondent No.4 issued advertisements dated 9.3.2018 and 9.4.2018. In response to the same, the petitioners applied for the posts of Programme Coordinators. The tenure of the appointments as per the aforesaid advertisement was initially for three years. The petitioners appeared in the written test followed by interview and they cleared the same. The petitioners were finally selected for the posts of Programme Coordinators and they joined their duties. The term of their appointment was extended upto 31.10.2019 vide letter dated 4.4.2019 (Annexure A-12) sent by Deputy Director (Personnel) of respondent No.3 to respondent No.4. Later on services of the petitioners were terminated w.e.f. 31.10.2019 (vide order Annexure A-14). The petitioners submitted representations against the said order of termination but the same were declined by the concerned authorities vide order dated 8.11.2019 (Annexure A-1) and order dated 7.11.2019 (Annexure A-2). Against the aforesaid termination order, the petitioners approached respondent No.10-Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (in short ‘the Tribunal’) through Original Application (in short ‘O.A’) No.60/1237/2019.

The O.A. filed by the petitioners was contested by the respondents before the Tribunal. Respondents filed written statement in which it was pleaded that the respondents No.2 and 3 hired respondent No.4 for supply of 300 Programme Coordinators in Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathans. On this respondent No.4 advertised the aforesaid posts of Programme Coordinators, who were to be employed purely on contract basis. On completion of selection process, the petitioners were appointed as Programme Coordinators for a period from the date of joining till 31.3.2019 or till the duration of project whichever was earlier. In their written statement, the respondents further pleaded that in the meantime process for recruitment of District Youth Coordinators on regular basis was initiated through Institute of Banking Personnel Selection. The said process has been completed and most of the candidates selected on regular basis have joined their duties. The regular incumbents have replaced the petitioners who were engaged as a stop-gap arrangement on contractual basis. Respondents prayed for dismissal of the O.A. moved by the petitioners.

The petitioners filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the respondents.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 18.5