High Court
Case Details
1 Reserved On:- 17.05.2022 Delivered On:- 20.06.2022 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1426 of 2021 Petitioner :- Triveni Lal Pal And 136 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 14 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ajal Krishna,C.S.C.,Laxmi Kant Tripathi,Prabhooti Kant Tripathi,Rajan Upadhyay,Raju Singh,Rizwan Ahmad,Rohit Pandey,Vivek Kumar Rai Hon'ble Siddharth, J. 1.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsels for the petitioners; Shri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3,4,8 and 9; Shri Rizwan Ahamad, learned counsel for the respondent no.1; Shri Rajan Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 13,14 and 15; Shri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5, 8 and 9; Shri Prabhooti Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 15 and Shri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for direction to the respondents to retain the petitioners as faculties as per terms and conditions of memorandum of understanding read with Section 9 P.I.P of the TEQIP Phase – III up to 31.03.2021. A direction has been sought against the respondent nos. 3/4 to take decision over the matter with respect of letter dated 11.08.2022 written by Central Project Advisory National Project Implementation Unit of Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India on or before 31.03.2021. By way of amendment quashing of impugned advertisement no. REC/ Estt. / GF/ dated 30.07.2021 issued by Registrar, Rajkiya Engineering College, Bijnor 2 (U.P) and the impugned advertisement no. 136/3/G.F/2021-22 dated 06.08.2021 issued by the Registrar, Kamla Nehru Institute of Technology, Sultanpur, U.P., has been sought. Quashing of the order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the Secretary, U.P., Government of Lucknow, respondent no. 3 has also been sought and finally directions to the respondents to absorb the petitioners as per terms and conditions and MOU in the faculties where they are working has been sought. 3. The brief facts of the petition are that for revamping the technical education in the country, the Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme (TEQIP), Phase III was started by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), New Delhi with the help of department of technical education counter part at the state level in the month of June, 2017. The first phase of TEQIP started in the year 2002. In the TEQIP Phase – III for meeting the shortage of faculty members several boards were constituted for selection of eligible candidates through State Service Commission and Union Public Service Commission to meet the shortage of teachers in the Technical Colleges and Institutions. The petitioners applied in pursuance of the advertisements for appointment in projects of 3 years starting from June, 2018 to September, 2020 and being qualified they were selected the projects was extended up to 31.03.2021. They have worked as Assistant Professors in the different technical institutions. In the year 2009 central government for was approached with regard retaining the petitioners and the central government sent a letter to the Secretary, Technical Education Department, Government of U.P for retaining the faculties as per terms and conditions of MOU. The State Government directed the University / Institutions to make plans as per MOU to retain the petitioners but the state government has expressed its inability. In writ petition by way of amendment it has been stated that the central government has refused to extend financial aid for retaining the petitioners 3 and the state government has also decided not to absorb the petitioners. It has been submitted that in number of other states persons like petitioners have been retained and are working. The state government has issued a letter for framing policy for absorption of the petitioners and similarly situated persons. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners are highly qualified persons possessing qualification of B.E/B.Tech and M.E/ M.Tech and have studies in institution of national importance like IIT, IIIT and NIT. They have cleared their GATE/NGC/NET/GRF examinations and they ought to have been absorbed by the state government in future projects / universities. By way of amendment the advertisement inviting guest faculties in some technical institutions have been brought on record, namely, Rajkiya Engineering College, Bijnor. Respondent no. 8 and Kamla Nehru Institute of Technical, Education, Sultanpur. He has submitted that the petitioners have legitimate expectations of absorption in the Technical Institutes and Universities in projects or as regular faculty. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4, 8 and 9 has filed counter affidavit and has submitted that as per Clause (V) of MOU the project was for 3 years wherein the petitioners were engaged. They cannot claim any regular appointment / absorption in the institution where they were engaged in the projects which have already come to an end on 30.09.2021. Their engagement was purely contractual. The Technical Institute Autonomous Institutes and are governed by their own statutes and Government Engineering Colleges are affiliated to the University having its own statutes. The state government cannot compel them to absorb the faculty engaged in project. The High Court of Delhi in bunch of petitions headed by WP (C) No. 9647 of 2020, C/M No. 30902 of 2020, (Sanjeev Kumar Vishwakarma vs. Union of India) has held that the petitioners have 4 no right to claim regularization / absorption since they were engaged in a project and on completion of project, their services came to an end. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has also filed counter affidavit and has submitted that the appointments of the petitioners were for particular project and the petitioners have no right to claim regularization or absorption in permanent service. 7. After consideration of the rival submissions this court finds that the controversy regarding rights of the contractual employees of a scheme claiming regularization / continuance in service has been decided number of times. 8. In the case of Mohd. Abdul Qadir and Ors. vs. Director General of Police, Assam and Ors. 2009 6 SCC 611, n paragraph 13, 14 and 15, the issue has been decided which are reproduced hereinbelow:- “13. The fact that the appellants were employed under the PIF Additional Scheme is not disputed. The duration of PIF Additional Scheme under which they are employed was initially two years, to be reviewed for continuation along with the original PIF Scheme. The said scheme is being extended from time to time and is being continued. If the temporary or ad-hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of the persons employed under the Project or Scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the Project or the Scheme. 14. The fact that the Scheme had been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularization. Even if any posts are sanctioned with reference to the Scheme, such sanction is of ad hoc or temporary posts co-terminus with the scheme and not of permanent posts. 15. On completion of the project or discontinuance of the scheme, those who were engaged with reference to or in connection with such Project or Scheme cannot claim any right to continue in service, nor 5 seek regularization in some other project or service. (See Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana - 1987 (4) SCC 634, Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration - 1992 (4) SCC 99, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., vs. Employees Union - 1995 (3) SCC 474, UP Land Development Corporation vs. Amar Singh - 2003 (5) SCC 388, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad UP v. Anil Kumar Mishra - 2005 (5) SCC 122, Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi - 2006 (4) SCC 31, Indian Council of Medical Research vs. K. Rajyalakshmi - 2007 (2) SCC 332, and Lal Mohammed vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. - 2007 (2) SCC 513). In view of this settled position, the appellants will not be entitled to regularization.” 9.
Decision
In view of the above consideration no relief can be granted to the petitioners except that their experience of working in projects would be relevant for consideration in future appointment / engagement. 10. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 11. The writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 20.06.2022 Rohit Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.06.28 12:42:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad