Project-based contractual employees do not acquire a vested legal right to regularization or permanent status, regardless of their tenure. Absent appointment against sanctioned posts through formal recruitment procedures, such employees cannot claim absorption into the regular service upon the conclusion of their specific project assignments.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Regularization of employment - Temporary and contractual appointees - Principles regarding legitimate expectation - Engagement for specifically funded projects does not confer a vested legal right to regularization, regardless of the duration of service - Such appointments, absent sanctioned posts and regular selection procedures, do not entitle the employee to claim permanency. (Paras 3, 6)

(B) Administrative Law - Scope of Judicial Review - Discontinuation of project-based services - Administrative decisions to dispense with temporary services upon project completion are within the competent authority's domain, provided they are not arbitrary - No legal requirement compels an organization to perpetuate contractual service where projects have concluded. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were engaged on a temporary, project-specific basis by a research-oriented institution. Service was provided over several decades with periodic artificial breaks, and salary structures varied between specific project assignments. Upon the conclusion of the research projects, the services of the petitioners were discontinued. The petitioners sought regularization and reinstatement before a lower administrative tribunal, which was refused, leading to the current writ litigation challenging that order.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the initial engagements were never against sanctioned permanent posts and were strictly tied to specific project durations. Relying on settled constitutional precedents, the court affirmed that continuous working on a project basis does not create a legal right to be absorbed into the regular establishment. The court maintained that judicial intervention is not permitted to compel regularization where no scheme exists for such absorption.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether long-term project-based contractual employees acquire a vested right to regularization and whether the termination of their services upon the conclusion of project funding warrants judicial intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: Contractual employment restricted to specific project funding does not create an inherent right to permanent status. As these employees were not appointed through standard public employment selection processes into sanctioned vacancies, they remain ineligible for regularization, confirming that the cessation of their services upon project conclusion is not legally remediable.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Under assail is the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 30.07.2024 made in O.A.Nos.1345 to 1347 of 2019. Applicants before CAT are writ petitioners. The present litigation is third round of litigation.

2. Writ Petitioners were appointed on temporary basis in the year 1995 in the scale of pay applicable to the post of Field Laboratory Assistant in Centre for Research in Medical Entomology (CRME) in Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Madurai. ICMR Vector Control Research Centre (VCRC) constituted at Puducherry and writ petitioners were allowed to serve on temporary basis with artificial break for few years. Till the year 2022, they continued in service and thereafter, their temporary services were dispensed with.

3. CAT elaborately considered the issue and held that issues relating to temporary / contractual appointment were considered by the Tribunal in several Original Applications and case of writ petitioners also is falling under the same. CAT, relying on earlier judgments passed based on judgments of Supreme Court, dismissed Original Applications. Paragraph No.11 of the order of Tribunal reads as under:

“11. This Tribunal has already taken a view in several OAS while adjudicating contentions as above for regularization of Temporary/Contractual appointees. We have also gone through the citations put forth by both the parties. The whole gamut of issues raised herein have been comprehensively tackled and decided in order, dated 02.01.2024. passed in OAS 887 of 2016 and 888 of 2016. The relevant portion of the order in OA 887/2016 is extracted below:-

7. It is useful to extract the relevant portions of the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant as hereunder:

(i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court Judgment reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Del 263:

28. As far as the case at hand is concerned, it is clear from the replies filed by ICMR to the applications under the RTI Act that there are 12 vacancies in the various posts of Scientists which remain unfilled. A second undisputed fact is that the Petitioner has been employed with ICMR on a continuous basis for more than 15 years i.e. 1st June, 1998 to 31st December, 2013. Going by the stand taken by AIIMS before the Supreme Court in the SLP filed against the judgment of this Court in Om Prakash (supra), it had been agreed in principle that those who have worked for projects continuously for more than 15 years would be considered for absorption keeping in view their educational qualification and experience and the availability of posts. There is nothing in the counter affidavit of the ICMR before CAT to indicate that it decided to adopt a policy different from that of AIIMS, on the question of permanently absorbing or regularizing project employees. The Court sees no points of distinction between project employees engaged by AIIMS and those engaged by ICMR for research work.

29. Lastly, the decision in Dr.V.L.Chandra (supra) has been consistently followed by this Court in the aforementioned decisions, one of which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the manner noticed hereinbefore.

30. Consequently, the Court sees no difficulty in allowing the prayer of the Petitioner that his services should be regularised in one of the vacant posts of Scientist available with the ICMR.

31. The Impugned order of the CAT dated 6th February, 2015 is accordingly set aside. A direction is issued to ICMR to issue the necessary orders appointing the Petitioner, consistent with his experience and qualifications in an appropriate post of Scientist, which is vacant and available in the ICMR, within a period of eight weeks from today. It is clarified that the period of service between 1st June, 1998 and 31st December, 2013 will be taken Into account for the purposes of calculating the pensionary benefits incidental to regular employment. The termination order dated 31st November, 2013 which brings to an end the Petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 50561

Cases Referred (2)