JANG BAHADUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER were employed by the Government on contract basis by different orders with a view to provide staff to the Member/ Convener, J&K State Autonomy Committee. The said Committee has submitted its report and stood wound up. Petitioners have been discharged. They approached the court seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accord the same treatment which has been accorded vide the Govt. order No. 1641 -GAD of 1988 dated: 17 -12 -1988 whereby Mufti Mohammad Farad -u -Din working on contract basis as Public Relation Officer was appointed as Resident Representative Chandigarh in relaxation of rules. They seek further similar relief for their appointment in relaxation of rules as has been done by the Government under Government Order No. 162 -GAD of 1998 dated: 11 -12 -1998 appointing Miss Atima Kachroo as Computer Operator in the General Administration Department.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and other evidence on record. The petitioners were appointed on contract basis to work as a Supervisory staff to the Autonomy Committee who has submitted its report to the Government, It was assigned a particular task and after completion of the task the Committee is not in existence and the services of the petitioners being contractual have come to an end by afflux of time. The respondents have, therefore, rightly dis -engaged the petitioners. The controversy as to whether the project/task assigned for the purpose is over, and whether the employees employed to accomplish task, can be continued in employment has been set at rest by the Apex Court in AIR 1997 SC 352 holding that: -"It is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to non -availability of funds, consequently, the employees have to go alongwith the closed project. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularize them or to continue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employment. Directions cannot be given to regularize vacancies nor directions can be given to create posts by the State to a non -existent establishment. The court would adopt pragmatic approach in giving directions. The directions would amount to creating of posts and continuing them inspite of non -availability of the work. 

(3.) THE appointment of the petitioner being for specific period has come to an end the petitioners are not entitled to seek either regularization or continuation in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 1992 Supreme Court page 2070 holding that: