GAUTAM KHANNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper book.

(2.) It transpires that the petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Store Purchase Officer in the respondent No. 2-National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) some time in the year, 1995. His application was considered by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 10.5.1995. On the basis of selection, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sore Purchaser Officer, on the fixed emoluments of Rs.4500/- per month on a contract of one year. It was stipulated that the contract may be extended by the NIPER if the exigencies of work so demand subject to his satisfac- tory work and conduct. It was clarified that the extension cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioner. It was also clarified that the services can be dispensed with during the period of contract by giving one month's prior notice or emoluments there- fore without assigning any reason/or on joining of a regular appointee. The petitioner likewise was permitted to quit by giving one month's notice or emoluments therefor. He was directed to submit the acceptance within two days of he receipt of the letter (An- nexure P-2). The petitioner appears to have joined on the said post. Subsequently, a public notice dated 16.12.1995 (Annexure P-3) was issued by the NIPER inviting appli- cations for various posts mentioned in the public notice. The petitioner applied and was selected on the post of Selection Officer (Store and Purchase).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the public notice (Annexure P-3) did not make any mention that the post was to be filled on contract ba- sis. It was a regular sanctioned post. It was also argued that the petitioner had earlier been assured that he would be adjusted as and "when the post of Store and Purchase of- ficer is regularly sanctioned. Four days after the public notice was issued the peitioner made a representation on 20.12.1995 (Annexure P-4). He pointed out that during the interview held on 10.05.1995, it was committed by the Director of NIPER that the petitioner would be absorbed in the Institute on regular basis as and when the sanction of the post of Store and Purchase Officer is received from the Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. Now in the public notice published in the Tribune dated December 16, 1995, the post of Section Officer (Stores and Purchase) which was one step junior to the post on which the petitioner was already working, had been advertised. The petitioner was told that he may apply for the post of Section Officer (Stores and Purchase) for the time being and in due course of time, he would be absorbed on the higher post of Stores and Purchase Officer on which he had initially joined in June, 1995. The petitioner submitted the application for the post of Section Officer (Stores and Purchase) on 04.01.1996. The petitioner was appointed on the said post by order dated 02.03.1996 (Annexure P-5). In the aforesaid order (Annexure P-5), it was mentioned that the appointment on the post of Section Officer (Stores and Purchase) is on contract basis for a period of five years commencing from the date of assuming charge of the post. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aggrieved against the contractual appointment, the petitioner made a representation (Annexure P-6) on the very same date, for deletion of the stipulation that the appointment is on contract for five years. It is further submitted that the respondent-Institute instead of paying any heed to the representation of the petitioner, compelled the petitioner to execute the contract of service. Learned counsel further submits that instead of appointing the petitioner on regular basis, the Director of NIPER has wrongly issued an office order (Annexure P-8) renewing the contract of the petitioner for a period of five years. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that under the rules framed by NIPER for recruitment to Faculty/Scientific/Technical/Ministerial and other post(s), the post held by the petitioner would fall within the definition of "permanent post". The respondents have wrongly termed the appointment of the petitioner as ''contractual". According to the learned counsel, the term "contractual appointment" as contained in para 2 of the appointment letter (Annexure P-5) deserves to be deleted.