- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Yogesh Mahajan v. Professor R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences .
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner was engaged in 1998 by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) as a Technical Assistant (ENT) on a purely contractual basis. His three-month contract was periodically renewed, without any break, until 30-6-2010. When AIIMS decided not to renew the contract further, the petitioner filed OA No. 4104 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking quashing of the AIIMS order dated 24-11-2010 that declined extension. CAT dismissed the OA on 25-7-2011, relying on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1. A review before CAT failed.
The petitioner then approached the Delhi High Court by WP (C) No. 7870 of 2011. The High Court, by order dated 19-12-2011 (2011 SCC OnLine Del 5685), affirmed CAT’s reliance on Umadevi and dismissed the writ petition; a subsequent review was rejected on 24-1-2012. The present Special Leave Petition was thereafter filed before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a contractual employee possesses a legal right to the renewal of his contract beyond 30-6-2010.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularisation of his services as a Technical Assistant (ENT) at AIIMS.
- Whether AIIMS acted arbitrarily in refusing to extend the petitioner’s contract despite later engaging other Technical Assistants in 2016.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- He received favourable recommendations for continuation and therefore the non-renewal of his contract was arbitrary and unjustified.
- AIIMS demonstrated continuing need for Technical Assistants, as evidenced by its 2016 recruitment of three such employees after a walk-in interview.
- Consequently, AIIMS’ refusal to extend his contract violated principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness.
AIIMS/Respondent’s Position (as recorded by the Court)
- No contract employee in the ENT Department had been granted an extension after 1-1-2009.
- The petitioner’s original engagement was made without following any prescribed procedure or rules, precluding any right to renewal or regularisation.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 | Contract/ad hoc appointees have no right to regularisation or continued employment when their initial appointment was not made in accordance with constitutional or statutory procedure. | The Court held that because the petitioner’s appointment was contractual and not in conformity with any established procedure, Umadevi barred any claim to regularisation or compulsory renewal. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that a contractual employee has no vested right to have the contract renewed. It affirmed CAT’s and the High Court’s reliance on Umadevi, emphasising that the petitioner’s engagement was made without adherence to any regular recruitment process or applicable rules, thereby negating any claim to regularisation.
The Court found that AIIMS had indeed considered the petitioner’s request for extension but chose not to continue his services. This decision was not arbitrary: absence of extensions to any ENT contract employee post-1-1-2009 showed a consistent institutional policy. The later recruitment in 2016 was deemed irrelevant to the petitioner’s claim, as changed circumstances six years later cannot retroactively create a right that did not exist in 2010. The Court suggested that the petitioner could have participated in the 2016 walk-in interview if he wished to be considered again.
Holding and Implications
The petitions were DISMISSED.
Immediate effect: the petitioner gains no entitlement to extension or regularisation, and AIIMS’ decision of 24-11-2010 stands affirmed. Broader implications: the judgment reinforces the principle that contract employees whose initial appointments did not follow due procedure cannot claim a right to continued service or regularisation merely because their services had been periodically renewed in the past. No new precedent beyond reaffirming Umadevi was set.
Madan B. Lokur, J.— The petitioner who appears in person was initially engaged on a contract basis as a Technical Assistant (ENT) in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in 1998. The initial contract was for a period of three months, but it was renewed from time to time, without any artificial breaks, on a quarterly or a six-monthly basis. It appears that the services of the petitioner were taken on contract basis without following any laid down procedure and without adherence to any rules. The contract of the petitioner was finally extended from 1-1-2010 to 30-6-2010.
2. When the contract of the petitioner was not renewed after 30-6-2010 he approached the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 4104 of 2010. The OA was subsequently amended, but the essential prayer of the petitioner was to the effect that the Order dated 24-11-2010 passed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, declining to extend his contract ad hoc appointment by a further period of six months ought to be quashed.
3. By its judgment and order dated 25-7-2011 the Central Administrative Tribunal declined to grant this relief to the petitioner on the ground that it had no right to an extension of his services and further, he had no right to be regularised as a Technical Assistant since his appointment on a contractual basis or on an ad hoc basis was made without following any laid down procedure and without following any rules. In this regard, the Central Administrative Tribunal relied upon the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1. The OA was accordingly dismissed.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a review petition, but that too was dismissed. Eventually, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in the Delhi High Court being WP (C) No. 7870 of 2011. The High Court passed a brief order 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5685 recording that reliance placed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 was correct. It was also recorded that the learned counsel for the All India Institute of Medical Sciences had stated that no contract employee in the ENT Department had been granted an extension after 1-1-2009. In these circumstances the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner by its order dated 19-12-2011 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5685. The petitioner preferred a review petition in the High Court, but that too was dismissed by an order dated 24-1-2012. In the circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
5. We heard the petitioner, appearing in person, on 17-1-2018. He submitted that there was no reason why his services were not extended, even though he had received a favourable recommendation for the continuance of his services. He contended that the decision of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in not renewing his contract was arbitrary and unjustified. The petitioner also drew our attention to a communication dated 22-2-2017 received by him from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in response to a query made by him under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In the communication, it was acknowledged that in May 2016 three persons were appointed to the post of Technical Assistant (ENT) after a walk-in interview. The contention of the petitioner was that under the circumstances, it was clear that the All India Institute of Medical Sciences needed the services of Technical Assistants and therefore there was no reason why his services were not extended.
6. It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. That being so, we are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was unable to show any statutory or other right to have his contract extended beyond 30-6-2010. At best, the petitioner could claim that the authorities concerned should consider extending his contract. We find that in fact due consideration was given to this and in spite of a favourable recommendation having been made, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences did not find it appropriate or necessary to continue with his services on a contractual basis. We do not find any arbitrariness in the view taken by the authorities concerned and therefore reject this contention of the petitioner.
7. We are also in agreement with the view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appointment of the petitioner on a contractual basis or on an ad hoc basis was made in accordance with any regular procedure or by following the necessary rules. That being so, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner for regularisation of his services. The decision in Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 does not advance the case of the petitioner.
8. Insofar as the final submission of the petitioner to the effect that some persons were appointed as Technical Assistant (ENT) in May 2016 is concerned, we are of the view that the events of 2016 cannot relate back to the events of 2010 when a decision was taken by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences not to extend the contract of the petitioner. The situation appears to have changed over the last six years and the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the changed situation. There is no material on record to indicate what caused the change in circumstances, and merely because there was a change in circumstances, does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to any benefit. On the other hand, it might have been more appropriate for the petitioner to have participated in the walk-in interview so that he could also be considered for appointment as Technical Assistant (ENT), but he chose not to do so.
9. We find no merit in these petitions and they are accordingly dismissed.
Alert