Order
1. Civil Appeals Nos. 16699-712 of 1996 are filed by Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. while Civil Appeals Nos. 16713-26 of 1996 are filed by the Clerks employed in the said Bank. All these appeals challenge the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court under which the High Court has given a direction to absorb 12 respondents who were initially appointed by the appellant Bank as mobile trainers and had been recruited in the years 1985-86 and 1986-87.
2. At the material time the National Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC) had undertaken a project financed by World Bank called NCDC III Project. The implementation of the said Project in the State of Karnataka was to be done by Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the appellant Bank. For implementing the said project, the appellant Bank issued two advertisements, one dated 25-11-1985 and the other dated 21-2-1987 for appointment of mobile trainers. Prior to the issue of these advertisements, the Board of the appellant Bank had passed a resolution dated 7-8-1985 resolving to recruit 23 mobile trainers in the pay scale of Rs 550-1150 for the implementation of NCDC III Project in the next three years in the manner set out in that resolution. The resolution also stated that out of the 23 mobile trainers, 8 trainers recruited in 1985-86, and the first four trainers recruited during the year 1986-87 would be on a permanent basis while the other trainers would be only for the specific period of the project implementation as per the guidelines. The appellant Bank had also obtained an order from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies dated 19-8-1985 permitting recruitment to the 23 posts of mobile trainers under NCDC III Storage Project.
3. In the advertisement of 21-11-1985, which is an advertisement for five posts of mobile trainers, it is stated that the mobile trainers are to be selected under NCDC III Storage Project, and these posts shall be treated as a separate cell. In the second advertisement of 21-2-1987, it is stated that the mobile trainers are being recruited under NCDC III World Bank Project. It is further stated that the appointments are purely temporary and anywhere in the State. The respondents have been appointed pursuant to these advertisements. The letters of appointment issued to those respondents who had applied under the first advertisement clearly set out that the appointment which is given to the mobile trainer concerned is purely on a temporary basis coterminous with NCDC III Project. The letter of appointment also inter alia states that these posts are treated as a separate cadre in the Agricultural Cooperative Staff Training Institute and are not interchangeable with any cadre of the Bank. The letter of appointment further states that if the person selected is agreeable to the terms set out in the appointment letter, he is directed to report for duty as set out therein. We are not concerned with the other terms and conditions of the appointment letter.
4. Pursuant to the appointment letters, separate agreements have been entered into by the appellant Bank with the respondents who were appointed under the first advertisement. The agreement also stated under clause 2 that the respondent concerned has been appointed on a temporary basis and on terms and conditions which are set out in the appointment order. Clause 3 states that the respondent is unconditionally agreeable to serve the Institute for a period of three years and clause 5 states that the respondent has agreed to serve the Institute temporarily for a period of five years, till the Project is completed.
5. The appointment letters which have been issued to those respondents who have been selected under the said advertisement of 21-2-1987 contain a clause to the effect that the appointment is purely on a contract basis on the consolidated salary of Rs 1800 per month for the first year and this will be increased in the second year. Clause 2 states that the period of contract is two years. However, the Bank reserves the right unilaterally to terminate the contract within the said period with one month's notice. The agreements which have been entered into by the respondents pursuant to the said letters of appointment also recite that the appointments on consolidated salary are purely temporary and on a contract basis for a period of two years. Clause 1 of the agreement similarly states that the respondent has agreed to work on a contract basis for a period of two years as a mobile trainer-cum-guide and clause 9 provides that the respondent shall have no right to insist either for extension of the contractual period or to demand any other emoluments, such as increments, allowances, gratuity etc.
6. The terms and conditions of service of all the respondents are, therefore, clearly, governed by the letters of appointment issued to them and the agreements entered into by them with the appellant Bank at the time of their appointment. They were all appointed as mobile trainers on a temporary/contract basis for a fixed period or till the completion of the Project.
7. On completion of the Project, the appellant Bank decided to absorb the respondents as Clerks in the appellant Bank. For this purpose, the Bank also obtained an order dated 27-12-1991 from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies at Karnataka, permitting them to so absorb the respondents. Accordingly the respondents have been so absorbed w.e.f 1-7-1989 and additional salary on that basis has also been paid to the respondents. Since the respondents were not satisfied with being absorbed as Clerks and wanted that they should be absorbed in the higher cadre as Assistant Managers, they filed a writ petition before the High Court which has been decided ultimately by the Division Bench as set out above.
8. The narrow question is whether on account of the original resolution passed by the appellant Bank on 7-8-1985, the respondents can claim that their appointments are on a permanent basis. The terms and conditions of appointment of the respondents are governed, not by the resolution, but by the letters of appointment and the agreements entered into by them with the appellant Bank at the time of their appointment. Since the documents clearly show the appointments to be temporary and for the purposes of NCDC III Project, which Project has come to an end, the respondents cannot claim any right to a permanent post in the appellant Bank.
9. This Court has held that when the posts are created for the purposes of the project, and the project is completed, no directions can be issued for the continuation of the posts. (See in this connection the judgment in Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya v. Bal Kishan Soni (1997) 5 SCC 86 and State of H.P v. Nodha Ram 1998 SCC (L&S) 478, AIR 1997 SC 1445.)
10. The appellant Bank, however, decided to absorb the respondents as Clerks, although it was not bound to do so. We fail to see how the respondents can have any legal claim for being absorbed as Assistant Managers. It is, however, submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that looking to the training which was imparted to the respondents and looking to their qualifications, (all of them have postgraduate degrees) they should have been accommodated in the posts in the Agricultural Cooperative Staff Training Institute where they were appointed under NCDC III Project. He also submits that some posts are available in the said Institute. He has also submitted that three officers of the Bank who are on deputation with the said Institute can also be reverted to accommodate some of the respondents, who should be appointed to the posts in the Institute, and whether any officer should be sent on deputation to the Institute or not, are matters of administration to be decided by the appellant Bank. In this connection, it will be open to the respondents to make a representation to the appellant Bank and the Bank may, having regard to their training, qualifications and experience, as also their eligibility for the said posts, decide whether the respondents or any of them should be absorbed in any available posts in the said Institute.
11. There is no legal basis for the claim of the respondents that they are to be absorbed as Assistant Managers or anywhere else. In fact the appellant Bank was not bound to absorb them even in the cadre of Clerks. The claim of the respondents, therefore, in the original writ petition filed before the High Court for absorption as Assistant Managers, cannot be sustained. The Division Bench was in error in giving directions to that effect. In the premises, the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and order of the Single Judge of the High Court is restored.
12. The civil appeals are accordingly allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.