MANPREET ARORA Vs. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Letters Patent Appeal, lays challenge to judgment dtd. 3/8/2018 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1409 of 2017 titled as Dr. Manpreet Arora and Ors. Vs. Central University of Himachal Pradesh, whereby prayer made on behalf of the appellants/petitioners to count contract service rendered by them for all intents and purposes, such as seniority, increment and promotion with all consequential benefits of pay and arrears etc., came to be dismissed.

(2.) For having bird's eye view, facts relevant for disposal of the appeal at hand are that vide advertisement notice No. 002/2010 respondent No.1-Central University (herein after referred to as "the University") decided to fill up few posts of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors on contract purely on temporary basis for a period of six months or attaining the age of 65 years or till regular appointments are made, whichever was earlier. For the above said purpose, the University constituted a local Selection Committee comprised of (i) Vice Chancellor, (ii) OSD (Administration) as Dean nominated, (iii) OSD (Academic) as Dean nominated and (iv) Two subject experts, which ultimately selected 18 Assistant Professors including the appellants on short term contract purely on temporary basis. General instructions and essential information, which were made part of the employment notice/advertisement, inter-alia, provided that selected candidates would be paid consolidated salary and will have no claim either for regular employment or other service benefits. Besides above, it also came to be mentioned in the advertisement/ employment notice that appointments to the posts would be made on the basis of performance of the candidates in the interview to be conducted for that purpose and selected candidates shall be appointed under the written contract. No doubt, vide letters of appointment dtd. 6/10/2010 appellants herein were fully apprised that they shall be getting consolidated salary of Rs.25,000.00 per month and shall not be eligible for appointment on regular basis, however fact remains that before contract entered upon by the appellants/petitioners could came to an end, their services were regularized. The appellants participated in the process initiated by the University for regular appointment and they being successful in the same were offered appointment on regular basis. Since prayer made on behalf of the appellants to count the contract service rendered by them from the date of their initial appointment for the purpose of seniority, increment as well as promotion etc., was not accepted by the University, they approached the Writ Court by way of CWPOA No. 1409 of 2017, praying therein to issue direction to the University to count their contract services for the purpose of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (in short "the CAS") from the due date i.e. after completion of four years with all consequential benefits of pay, arrear and seniority etc. They also sought direction to the University to count the contract period service for the purpose of direct recruitment to the post of Associate Professor, for which the University has otherwise denied in case of the appellants earlier. Lastly, appellants prayed that University be strictly directed to adhere to Clauses 13.0 and 13.1 of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 and pay salary to the appellants at par with the salary of regularly appointed teachers w.e.f. October, 2010 till November, 2012 i.e. when appellants worked on contract basis.

(3.) Aforesaid claim put forth by the appellants came to be seriously refuted by the University on the ground that initial appointment of the appellants in the month of October 2010 against the posts of Assistant Professor in various disciplines were purely on temporary basis for a period of six months or attaining the age of 65 years or till regular appointments and their regularization subsequently against the posts in question was not in terms of any Regulation Policy, rather in terms of fresh process initiated by the University for appointing Assistant Professors in regular capacity. Respondent/University also set up a case before the Writ Court that appellants herein were made aware in advance that they shall have no right to claim regularization or benefit of past service, if any, on account of their being given appointment on contract basis. Respondent/University also stated in reply to the petition that selection of appellants on contract basis was done through the Selection Committee as envisaged in clause 18(6) of the Statute of the respondent/ University, whereas the regular appointment pursuant to employment notices No. 003/2010 and 003/2011 dtd. 13/6/2011, was done by the Selection Committee constituted strictly in terms of University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010.