Back
2022 Supreme(MP) 136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravi Malimath, C.J. and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Rajani Bharti v. Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology
Writ Appeal No. 1212 of 2021 (J); Decided on 3.2.2022*
Rajani Bharti, present in person; Yogesh Bhatnagar with Vivek Baderiya for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Headnote:
Civil Services -- contractual employment -- appellant appointed as Assistant Professor (Temporary) for odd semester on consolidated salary -- employment to end automatically on expiration of odd semester unless extended further -- extension granted for one more semester -- appellant seeks to be continued -- contractual appointment is bound by terms of appointment order -- neither any regularization of services nor any extension can be claimed as matter of right -- no mandamus can be issued to continue with such employment. (2006) 12 SCC 482, (2011) 15 SCC 16 and (2009) 16 SCC 385 followed. Writ Petition No. 16560 of 2020 decided on 5.4.2020 relied on. [Paras 4 & 7]
flfoy lsok & lafonkRed fu;kstu & vihykfFkZuh fo"ke l= d¢ fy, lesfdr osru ij lgk;d vkpk;Z ¼vLFkk;h½ fu;qDr & tc rd cढ+k;k ugha tk,] fo"ke l= d¢ lekiu ijfu;kstu Lor% lekIr g¨xk & ,d vkSj l= d¢ fy, cढ+k;k x;k & vihykfFkZuh dh fujarj cus jgus dh ÃIlk -- lafonkRed fu;qfDr] fu;qfDr vkns'k d¢ fucaèku¨a ls vkc) gksrh gS & u r¨ fu;fefrdj.k dk v©j u foLrkj.k dk gh vfèkdkjLo:i nkok fd;k tk ldrk gS & ,slk fu;¨tu tkjh j[kus d¢ fy, vkKk tkjh ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼2006½ 12 ,l lh lh 482] ¼2011½ 15 ,l lh lh 16 rFkk ¼2009½ 16 ,l lh lh 385 vuqlfjrA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 16560 lu~ 2020 fu.kÊr fnukad 5-4-2020 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 4 ,oa 7½
ORDER
1. This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dated 3.12.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10619 of 2020, whereby, petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The appellant, being aggrieved by order dated 29.5.2020, has filed petition under Article 226 of Constitution. By said order the appointment of all temporary faculties are brought to an end on 29.5.2020, upon completion of the semester, therefore, the concerned HOD was to relieve them including to the appellant. Her case before the learned Single Judge was that despite the directions to the HOD’s to relieve temporary faculty, the appellant was not relieved and vide Circular dated 7.4.2020, revised academic calendar was published, therefore, the semester continued and the appellant is entitled to serve atleast upto 4.7.2020.
3. The respondents before the learned Single Judge have submitted that on the basis of walk-in-interview, the appellant was appointed as a temporary faculty on consolidated salary. Since appointment was for a fixed term, therefore, the appellant does not have any right to continue. According to the respondents, new appointments have taken place and regular faculties are working. Therefore, they are no more in need of temporary faculties.
4. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyavardhaka Sangha & Another v. Y.D.Deshpande [ (2006) 12 SCC 482.], Grideo Limited & Another v. Sri Sadananda Doloi & Others [ (2011) 15 SCC 16.] and Reji Kumar & Others v. Director of Health Services, Kerala & Others [(2009) 16 SCC 385.] and decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akram Jafri and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh [W.P.No.16560 of 2020 decided on 05.04.2020.], has held that the appointment made on adhoc basis for specific period of time comes to a end by the efflux of the time and the person holding such post has no right to continue on the said post.
5. We have considered the order of appointment of the appellant dated 9.8.2019. The appointment order clearly records that the appointment of the appellant as Assistant Professor (Temporary) in the Department of Chemical Engineering for odd semester commencing on 17th July, 2019, on the consolidated monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-would come to an end automatically on expiration of odd semester unless the same is extended further. The order of extension dated 30.12.2019, also records that the extension is granted only for one more semester w.e.f. 1.1.2020 to 31.5.2020 and the original terms and conditions of the order dated 9.8.2019 were not altered.
6. There is no document to show that at any point of time, the respondents have further extended the temporary appointment of the appellant beyond 30.5.2020.
7. It is settled legal position that the contractual appointee is bound by the terms of his or her appointment order, neither any regularization of the services nor any extension can be claimed as a matter of right. The contractual appointee cannot stretch his or her claim beyond the terms of the appointment and hence, no mandamus can be issued to continue with such an employment.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
