Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4673
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
A.S. SUPEHIA, J
JANI CHINTAN HARESHKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR - PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD (PGVCL) – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3623 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3626 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3629 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3630 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3632 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3633 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6768 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6769 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6771 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6772 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6773 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6774 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6775 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6776 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6777 of 2013 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6953 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR PREMAL NANAVATI
For the Respondents: MR DIPAK R DAVE
Contractual employment lacks permanency rights post project completion unless contract terms specify otherwise.
Headnote:(A) Contractual Employment - Terms of Contract - Termination of service of contractual employees upon project completion - Validity of continuous employment beyond initial contract disputed - Apex Court's principles cited reinforcing that temporary employees have no inherent right to permanence unless specified by statute or regulations. (Paras 10.2, 12.3)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of - Reviewability of termination of contractual employees - The court emphasizes limits of its role in assessing administrative decisions unless there is clear evidence of irregularities or arbitrariness. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were appointed as contractual Junior Engineers for a specific period, subsequently relieved upon project completion, raising issues of wrongful termination and replacement by additional contract employees.
Findings of Court:
The petitioners' contracts were bound by terms agreed upon, allowing for termination at the end of each period without any prior rights for regularization.
Issues: The primary questions were whether the petitioners had a right to permanency and if their terminations were justified based on the end of contracted work.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that acceptance of temporary employment terms binds employees; continuity does not grant rights to permanent positions without substantive support. (Paras 12, 13)
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common issues resolved for multiple writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for wrongful termination and contract terms debated. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. judicial review principles and contract enforcement discussed. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. apex court's decisions on contractual rights examined. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. clarifies contracts govern employment terms, ruling on permanency. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. conclusion arrived at dismissal of writ petition. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGEMENT
1. Since the common issue is involved in the present writ petitions, the same are heard and decided analogously by the common judgement and order.
2. All the writ petitioners were appointed as Vidhyut Sahayak (Junior Engineers) in the respondent-Company on contractual basis/ the petitioners have prayed for directions directing the respondent-Company to permanently appoint them on the post of Vidhyut Sahayak (Junior Engineers) and restrain the respondent-Company from relieving them from the service.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-Company had appointed them through the recruitment process, after issuance of advertisement on contractual basis and they could not have been relieved from service without prior notice.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavati appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were selected in the selection process conducted pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2010 and their contract was subsequently extended / renewed, establishes the fact that the petitioners are qualified for the selection/recruitment and there is no justification in terminating the service of the petitioners. It is submitted that an assurance was given by the respondent-Company that they were appointed after giving artificial break. It is further submitted that the respondents are adopting unfair practice. He has submitted that at regular interval, the respondents kept on engaging persons on contract basis even on the posts, which are vacant and thereby replacing the contract based employees by other contract based employees.
Learned advocate also submitted that in giving the appointments to the candidates selected pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2010 i.e. from the common list, which was prepared on the basis of the selection process conducted pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2010, the respondents have adopted pick and choose policy and certain persons, whose names were below the petitioners in the selection list, have been given appointments as Vidhyut Sahayak, whereas some petitioners’ engagement on contract base was renewed/extended.
It is also submitted that the petitioners possessed the qualification and they fulfilled the criteria prescribed by the respondents to the post in question. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Hariyana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 2130 and has submitted that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee.
4.1 Thus, he has submitted that a specific project, for which the petitioners were engaged, has been continued and there was no occasion for the respondent-Company to terminate the petitioners form service.
5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave has submitted that it is not disputed that the petitioners were appointed on the contractual basis for 11 months and have accepted the conditions of the contract.
He has submitted that condition No.7 of the appointment letter specifically states that such appointment will not confer any right to them on the regular post of Junior Engineer and after the project work was over, all the petitioners were terminated. He has disputed the submission made by the learned advocate Mr.Nanavati with regard to continuation of the project.
5.1 While referring to the reply, he has submitted that though it cannot be denied that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Vidhyut S
