Back
2021 Supreme(UK) 61
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Manish Kumar Arya - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1694 of 2019, 1695 of 2019, 1696 of 2019, 1701 of 2019, 1702 of 2019, 1789 of 2019, 1852 of 2019, 1853 of 2019, 1865 of 2019, 1699 of 2019, 1700 of 2019, 1776 of 2019, 1909 of 2019, 1900 of 2019, 1517 of 2019, 1410 of 2019, 1525 of 2019, 1526 of 2019, 1667 of 2019
Decided On : 25-03-2021
Alok Mahra, Advocate, D.K. Bankoti, Advocate, P.C. Bisht, Advocate, Vinay Kumar, Advocate, S.C. Dumka, Advocate, J.C. Karnatak, Advocate, Prasanna Karnatak, Advocate, Pankaj Kumar, Advocate, Neeraj Garg, Advocate, Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate, Susheel Kumar, Advocate
The court held that contract employees have no right to continue their employment beyond the terms of their contracts. The court also emphasized that the rights of the petitioners were restricted to the terms of the contract and there was no violation of their legal or constitutional rights.
Headnote:
The court examined the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which required the Institute Management Committees (IMCs) to be registered as societies. It also referred to the provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed between the Central Government, State Government, and the Industry partner for the implementation of the scheme. The court analyzed the obligations and powers of the IMCs under the scheme, including the appointment of contract faculty and the utilization of funds. It also considered the financial situation of the IMCs and the repayment of loans. The court concluded that there was no statutory obligation upon the IMCs to continue with the services of the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were contract employees appointed under a government scheme for the up-gradation of ITIs. Their contracts had expired and they were asked not to continue. They filed writ petitions seeking directions to continue their employment and receive minimum salary as provided under the scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the provisions of the scheme, the terms of the contract, and the legal rights of the petitioners. It concluded that the scheme was a policy matter and the IMCs, as societies registered under the Societies Act, were not under any statutory obligation to continue with the services of the petitioners. The court also noted that the petitioners' contracts had already expired before they were asked not to continue. It held that the petitioners' right to employment was restricted to the terms of the contract and there was no violation of their legal or constitutional rights. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, as contract employees, had no right to continue their employment beyond the terms of their contracts. The IMCs were not under any statutory obligation to continue with their services. The court also noted that the scheme was a policy matter and the petitioners' right to employment was restricted to the terms of the contract. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petitions.
Result: All the writ petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The Court proceeds to discuss the facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No.1694 of 2019 and thereafter reveal the facts of other cases. Writ Petition (S/S) No.1694 of 2019
3. It is the case of the petitioner that Government of India (GOI) launched a Scheme for up-gradation of 500 Government ITIs, out of 18096 Government ITIs in the country, which started from the year 2005-2006. Thereafter, GOI announced the up-gradation of remaining 1396 ITIs into centers of excellence through public-private partnership (PPP) (for short "the Scheme"), for which financial approval of Rs.750.04 crore was accorded in the year 2007-08 and thereafter grants were also released. As per this Scheme, for each selected ITIs, an Institute Management Committee (IMC) was to be registered under the relevant provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short "the Societies Act") by the concerned State Government. It was the responsibility of IMCs to manage the affairs of the concerned ITI. In order to run the Scheme, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed between the Central Government, State Government and the Industry partner. The financial responsibility of running the Scheme was also elaborated and an interest free loan upto Rupees 2.5 crore was to be given by the Central Government directly to the IMCs for up-gradation of ITIs. This interest free loan was to be kept by IMCs in a separate bank account. The Scheme also provided as to how to utilize this amount. The implementation of the Scheme at the Central level was to be monitored by the National Steering Committee and at the State level by the State Steering Committee. Various ITIs in the State of Uttarakhand were also selected under this Scheme. The Scheme was subsequently amended also.
4. In order to implement the Scheme, respondent no. 4 Secretary/Principal Institute Management Committee, Government Industrial Training Institute, Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar issued an advertisement for one post of Instructor (Employability Skills) and for other posts. The petitioner responded to the advertisement and he was appointed on 15.01.2016 for the academic session 2015-16. Thereafter, the engagement of the petitioner was extended on various occasions up till 2018-19. But, on 01.07.2019, the petitioner was asked not to continue and it was an oral direction. Aggrieved by discontinuation of his engagement, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to permit him to continue with the work on the post of Instructor as well as grant him minimum salary for the contract Instructor as provided under the Scheme.
5. Respondent no. 1 State of Uttarakhand has filed the counter affidavit in the matter. According to the State, the IMCs have to make arrangements to hire the contract faculty to provide the training to the candidates and there is no requirement of prior approval or permission from the Government for making appointment of the contract faculties. As also it is stated that for removal of these contract faculties from their services, there is no requirement to get prior approval or permission from the Government.
6. Respondent no. 4 IMC has also filed its counter affidavit. It is the specific case of the IMC that the appointment of the petitioners is purely temporary on contract basis for a limited period, that too, on non-government posts; the IMC is running out of funds; out of Rupees 20 lakh allocated for expenditure under the head of manpower, the IMC had already spent Rupees 20.46 lakh. It is the case of the IMC that under the Scheme, a free loan of Rs.2.5 crore was granted to IMC. The loan was to be repaid and in case of default in repayment, there is a stipulation of penalty. The IMC has already been required by the communication dated 29.11.2019 of the State Government to deposit the first ins
