Court ruled that contractual employees have no right to challenge terms post-acceptance and can be terminated without inquiry based on performance during contract period.

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

By this common order, both the petitions are disposed of as issues involved in both the petitions are interconnected. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of both sides, facts are borrowed from CWP-19997-2023.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure P-20) whereby petitioner has been terminated and order dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure P-21) whereby petitioner has been relieved.

3. The brief facts of the case which are necessary for the adjudication of present petitions are that the petitioner vide appointment letter dated 29.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) came to be appointed on the post of Associate Senior Designer in communication design discipline with respondent-National Institute of Design (for short 'institute').

3.1 The respondent-institute issued an advertisement dated 03.03.2022 (Annexure P-2) inviting applications from eligible and competent professionals for the post of Senior Designer in three major disciplines, namely, Industrial Design, Communication Design and Textile & Apparel Design. The petitioner applied for the advertised post and respondent-institute on the basis of interview selected him on the post of Senior Designer (Direct Recruitment) in the Pay Level-12 (78800-209200).

3.2 The respondent issued appointment letter dated 05.09.2022 (Annexure P-5). In the appointment letter, it was mentioned that the petitioner would be initially appointed on contract basis for two years and after two years, his performance would be reconsidered and if he is found satisfactory, he would have to undergo probation period of one year before his confirmation.

3.3 The petitioner vide e-mail dated 06.09.2022 sent his consent and thereafter signed appointment letter in token of his consent to terms and conditions of the appointment letter. The petitioner joined on the advertised post on 09.09.2022. The petitioner was assigned duty of Activity Chairperson (Edu.). The respondent-institute found the services of the petitioner unsatisfactory and on the basis of information collected at internal level, formed an opinion that petitioner deserves to be terminated. The respondent-institute terminated the petitioner without conducting formal inquiry in terms of show cause notice followed by opportunity of hearing. The respondent-institute did not conduct inquiry, forming an opinion that petitioner was a contractual employee and as per terms and conditions of the appointment letter, he can be terminated without inquiry subject to one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice.

3.4 The petitioner is assailing terms and conditions of advertisement, appointment letter and termination order. As per petitioner, terms and conditions of the advertisement were contrary to the Statute. Termination of the petitioner is illegal and bad in the eye of law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that advertisement was contrary to First Statute of the National Institute of Design, Ahmadabad (for short 'First Statute') as made applicable to N.I.D. Kurukshetra. Clause 30 of the First Statute provides for classification of the members of the staff of the institute as well as their appointments. As per sub-clause (2) of Clause 30, an employee either may be regul