The court recognized the right of the State to appoint persons on temporary basis to meet its exigencies, and held that the failure of the ATTC to maintain the student to lecturer ratio and the petitioners' training under the Carrier Advancement Scheme cannot be a reason for the court to direct regularization of contractual employees.

JUDGMENT :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. As both W.P. (C) No 29 of 2017 and W.P. (C) No. 30 of 2017 raises similar issues this common judgment shall dispose both of them.

2. Heard the petitioners in person in both the writ petitions; Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 in W.P. (C) No 29 of 2017 and respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 in W.P. (C) No. 30 of 2017 and Mr. D.K. Siwakoti, learned counsel for respondent no.4 in W.P. (C) No 29 of 2017 and respondent no.5 in W.P.(C) No. 30 of 2017.

3. The petitioners in person (Naw Raj Bhattarai) in W.P. (C) No. 29 of 2017 and (Amosh Shanker) in W.P. (C) No. 30 of 2017) submits that although their appointment orders state that they had been appointed on contractual basis, the Advanced Technical Training Centre (ATTC) had always treated them as regular employees and its failure to regularise them in spite of various assurances violates their fundamental rights. It is also their case that the ATTC has failed to keep the student faculty ratio as per the requirements set by the All India Counsel for Technical Education (AICTE) and on that ground also a direction to regularise them would be maintainable. The petitioners submits that they are qualified to hold the regular posts and as their appointments were done in accordance with the constitutional scheme of appointments i.e. by advertising the posts in a newspaper; inviting eligible candidates; conducting written examination and viva voce and selecting eligible candidates for the advertised posts, they should be regularised. They have drawn the attention of this court to chapter III of the Service Rules of the Advanced Technical Centre, 2003 (Service Rules) which provide that all appointments shall be made on contract basis for one year and that based on an “appraisal report” they shall be considered for regular appointment on probation. It was submitted that the records would reveal that the ATTC had not expressed its dissatisfaction on their performance and therefore, considering them for regularisation ought to have been done. They drew the attention of this court to the specific pleading in W.P. (C) No.29 of 2017 i.e. paragraphs 14 and 13 in W.P. (C) No.29 of 2017 and W.P. (C) No. 30 of 2017 respectively in which they had stated that the ATTC had even made them fill up a form for self assessment during their service which assertion has been accepted as matter of record in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State respondents including ATTC. It is their case that they have been sent for various training programmes by ATTC and those training programmes were under the Carrier Advancement Scheme meant for movement to higher grades as the knowledge obtained from such training would be beneficial to the students. It is also their case that they had been in continuous service during the entire period and that they were employed against sanctioned posts and worked till 2016 in such capacity. The petitioners relied upon Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Ors. 2006 (2) SCALE 115; B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 363; Secretary, State of Karnataka v Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1; Malathi Das v. Suresh, (2014) 13 SCC 249 and Mandeep Sunwar v. State of Sikkim, SLR (2017) Sikkim 53.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General (learned AAG) submitted that the perusal of the writ petitions as well as the records would reveal that there has been no violation of any right, leave alone any fundamental right of the petitioners. She relied upon Mani Subrat Jain & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1977) 1 SCC 486 to submit that no one can ask for mandamus without a legal right.

5. The learned A.A.G. submits that the appointment orders are clear and unambiguous and that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis on specific terms and conditions. It is her case that the terms and conditions of contract specifically provided that they shall have no