IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT, JJ.
Dr. Gaurav Upadhyay - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Additional Secretary, Technical Education & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) Nos. 235, 238 of 2021, 551 of 2022, 553 of 2022
Decided On : 05-06-2024
Employment - Writ Petition - TEQIP Project - Employment Termination - Project Duration
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief to ensure a sustainability plan for faculty under the TEQIP III Phase and to quash an advertisement deemed arbitrary, fearing termination of service due to project completion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's employment was co-terminus with the TEQIP project, which was set to end, and thus, the petitioner could not claim continuation of service beyond the project's duration.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue employment beyond the termination of the TEQIP project.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that project-based employment ceases with the project's completion, and there is no entitlement to regularization or continuation without specific agreement.
Result: The writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to approach the State Government for continuance of engagement.
JUDGMENT :
Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 235 of 2021 alone are being considered and discussed. Petitioner Dr. Gaurav Upadhyay has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs :
“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus, commanding the Respondents to insure that a Sustainability Plan is formulated for the TEQIP III Phase faculty, currently teaching at Institute of Technology, Gopeshwar, in accordance with the directives of the Government of India and the State of Uttarakhand.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to ensure fair and transparent selection process, by which high performing faculty can be identified in the interest of student of the Institute of Technology, Gopeshwar.
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement dated 15.2.2021 as being arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to law.”
2. According to petitioner, he was appointed in Institute of Technology, Gopeshwar in the year 2018 under Technical Education Quality Implementation Programme, introduced by Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education with the help of World Bank. In the appointment order itself, it was mentioned that petitioner’s appointment shall stand terminated on stipulated date (31.3.2020) and/or shall be co-terminus with the project, whichever is earlier. According to petitioner, the term of the project was extended up to 31st March, 2022. Apprehending termination of his service, petitioner has filed this writ petition. A coordinate Bench of this Court passed an interim order in favour of petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 235 of 2021 alone, on the strength of which petitioner is said to be continuing in service.
3. In sum and substance, petitioner wants a sustainability plan to be formulated for implementation of TEQIP-III Phase so that his employment with Institute of Technology, Gopeshwar is continued unhindered.
4. Mr. Siddhartha Sah and Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned Counsel appearing for the Institute of Technology, relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 9647/2020 and other connected writ petitions for contending that similarly situate persons appointed as faculty under TEQIP Project had approached Delhi High Court claiming various reliefs, however, their writ petitions were dismissed. Para 21 to 25 of Delhi High Court judgment are reproduced below :
“21. There is no dispute that the petitioners' appointment was with regard to a project (TEQIP-Ill) started on the basis of the funding made by the World Bank. The purpose of the Project is very clear to improve the technical education in the country and the same is to be achieved by appointing faculties in different Govt. / Govt. funded institutes. The terms of appointment of the petitioners are very clear that the same is temporary for a period of three years. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that the World Bank has decided not to fund the Project beyond March 31, 2021 and pursuant thereto the Project Unit shall be disbanded. In other words, the Project for which the petitioners are working would no more exist. The very basis of employment of the petitioners shall cease to exist. If that be so, the appointment of the petitioners shall also be discontinued. The petitioners being Project employees, cannot continue beyond the project life, i.e., March 31, 2021. The plea of Mr. Mehta is that the posts being in existence, the petitioners need to be continued. I am not in agreement with the said submission for the reason, the posts on which the petitioners are working were created for the purpose of the project namely TEQIP-Ill and are called the project posts and shall with the disbanding of the project, ceases to exist. The
Lal Mohammed vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd.
Bhagwan Dass vs. State of Haryana
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union vs. Delhi Administration
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. vs. Employees Union
AI
Temporary project-based employment does not confer rights for regularization beyond the project's duration.
Employees appointed on project-based contracts funded by external agencies cannot claim continuation after project termination, adhering to established constitutional principles of public employment.
Temporary and contractual employment under specific schemes is coterminous with the project duration, barring rights to permanency or regularization based on performance, emphasizing service conditio....
Engagement on a contractual basis in project-specific roles does not confer rights to permanency, and long service cannot override express terms of engagement.
Point of Law : Re-engagement of the petitioners after the first contractual period was over will not amount to unfair practice.
Temporary employees cannot be replaced by other temporary appointees; regularization must follow due process ensuring fairness and equality in employment.
Employers must clearly specify the nature of appointments in job advertisements; failure to do so leads to regularization of initially contractual positions when recruitment processes are followed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.