B LALTANPUIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the officers and Staff of the State Resource Centre, Shillong. Their case in the writ petition is that the University Grants Commission approved the establishment of the State Resource Centre for production of literacy materials at the North Eastern Hill University (for short the 'NEHU') and accordingly sanctioned in January, 1991 one post of Honorary, one post of Assistant Director, three posts of project officers, three posts of Research Assistants, one post of Accounts Clerk, one post of Steno- Typist, one post of Technician , one post of peon and one post of Driver for the establishment of the State Resource Centre. An Advertisement was issued by 'NEHU' on l6.8.91 inviting applications for the said posts. The petitioners applied for the posts and were selected after interview by the Selection Committee. After selection, appointment letters were issued to some of the petitioners in 1992, 1994 and 1995 and the petitioners joined in their respective posts and have been working. In 1994 -95 the Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi revised the pattern for financial assistance to the State Resource Centre during the 8th plan perked and as per such revised pattern the State Resource Centre, Shillong is getting 100% finance from the Central Government and the State Resource Centre was to have i1s own Governing Body. The Governinig Body of the State Resource Centre, Shillong in its meeting held on 15.9.98 adopted a resolution to issue fresh contract to the old appointees renewable every year and also adopted a resolution to adopt 5th pay Commission recommendation for the staff of the State Resource Centre with effect from 1.1.98 Aggrieved by the said resolutions of the Governing Body of the State Resource Centre, the petitioners submitted representation dated 20.10.98 to the Chairperson of the State Resource: Centre pointing out that their service Conditions cannot be altered arbitrarily and requested him to extend the benefit of revised scales of pay as per recommendation of the 5th pay Commission with effect from 1.1.96 instead of 1.1.98. No. action , however, was taken on the said representation of the petitioners. The petitioners have therefore filled this writ petition for a writ or direction on the respondents not to alter the existing terms and conditions of the service of the petitioners and to treat them as quasi-permanent as per Rules of the Central Government and to extend the benefit of revised scale of pay to the petitioners as recommeded by the 5th pay Commission writ effect from 1.1.96.

(2.) Mr. N. K. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the State Resource Centre, Shillong has all thorough been a part of 'NEHU'. He contended that the advertisement dated 16.8.91 inviting applications for the posts was itself issued by 'NEHU' and similarly the appointment letters were issued by the authorities of the 'NEHU'. In the advertisement dated 16. 8. 91 inviting applications to the posts, there was no indication whatsoever that the posts were to be temporary and it was rather stated that althougn the posts are tenable till 1995 they are most likely to continue. He argued that since the petitioners have been working in their respective posts without break for more than 5 years,they have acquired quasi- permanent status under F.R. and S.R. Which are applicable to Central Government employees. According to Mr. Deb, therefore, the Governing Body of the State Resource Centre, Shiliong has acted illegally and arbitrarily in adopting the resolution in its meeting held on 15th Sept' 1998 to issue fresh contract to old appointees renewable every year. He submitted that this is a fit case in which the said resolution of the Governing Body of the State Resource Centre adopted in its meeting dated 15th Sept' 1998 should be quashed by the Court and the respondents be directed to regularise the service of the petitioners. He further argued that the recommendation of the 5th pay commission regarding revised scales of pay have been made applicable to the officers and staff of the State Resource Centre with effect from 1.1.98 but the same should be made applicable with effect from 1.1.96. In support of his arguments for regularising the services of the petitioners, he cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rabina Bayan Mohapatra vs State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 1287, K . S. P. College Stop Gap Lecturers Association vs State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 677, State ofHaryana vs Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130, J & K Public Service Commission, AIR 1994 SC 1808, Air India Satutory Corpn vs United Labour Union, AIR 1997SC 645, Secretary, H. S. E. B. vs Suresh, AIR 1999 SC 1160, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology vs State of U. P., AIR 2000 SC 2695.

(3.) Ms T. Yangi , learned counsel for the Respondent Nos 4 and 5, on the other hand, submitted that, since the State Resource Centre, Shiliong is a temporary organisation the Court should not direct regularisation of the service of the petitioners. Ms Yangi further pointed out that in the very advertisement dated 16.8.91 inviting applications for the posts pursuant to which the petitioners have been appointed it was clearly stated that the appointments will be for one year renewable every year on the basis of performance. She further submitted that in the said advertisement it is also stipulated that all the posts were tenable till 1995 and most likely to continue. She submitted that since the State Resource Centre is being financed under the 8th plan which was upto 31.3.2002 the posts to which the petitioners have been appointed are likely to continue only upto 31.3.2002 and the petitioners cannot be regularised in service nor given a quasi-permanent status. Ms Yangi referred to the appointment letters of the petitioners annexed to the writ petition to show that the appointments were made purely on temporary basis for a period of one year with effect from the date of the joining. She explained that since the one year period from the date of appointment of the petitioners had expired, the Governing Body of the State Resource Centre adopted the resolution on 15.9.98 to renew the appointment of the petitioners and pursuant to such resolution of the Governing Body extension notification dated 22.9.98 were issued in favour of the petitioners, copies have been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as Annexures F. to P. She further argued that it will be clear free the extension notifications dated 22.9.98, Annexures F to P, that tlie appointment of the petitioners wetre extended for a period of one year upto 31.3.2002 on the same terms and conditions on which they were originaKly appointed. According to Ms Yangii, therefore, there was no alteration of the service conditions of the petitioners Regarding recommendation of the 5th pay Commission for revised scales of pay, Ms.Yangi submitted that the same couild not be implemented for the officers and staff of the State Resource Centre, Shillong because the Director General, National Literacy Mission in his letter dated 10.1.98 (Annexure VI) to the writ petition has fixed the over all limit of expenditure on emoluments of the State Resource Centre, Shillong B Category at Rs. 15.00 lakhs. In support of her submission that no direction can be issued by the Court fo:r regularisation of the service of am employee who is appointed on temporary post in a temporary project, she cited the decision of the Supreme Court in State of H. P. Vs Ashwani Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 352.