- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Somesh Thapliyal & Another Petitioners v. Vice Chancellor, Hnb Garhwal University & Another S
Factual and Procedural Background
The writ petitions arise from advertisements published by a University in 2004, 2006, and 2011 inviting applications for various teaching posts, including Lecturers and Associate Professors in the Pharmaceutical Science Department. Petitioners responded to these advertisements and were offered contractual appointments, which they accepted without protest, although the advertisements did not specify that the posts were contractual. The petitioners contended that the 2011 advertisement invited applications for posts they were already occupying on a contractual basis. Interim orders were passed in the writ petitions in 2011, limiting relief to the posts held by petitioners. The contractual employment of the petitioners has not been terminated. The University contended that prior to 2011 there were no permanent posts in the Pharmaceutical Science Department, as it operated on a self-financing basis, and permanent posts were only created after the University became a Central University in 2009 and received sanction in 2011. The petitions challenge the contractual nature of their appointments and seek regularization.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the factual matrix and found that the petitioners were appointed on contractual terms pursuant to advertisements for self-financing scheme posts. It noted that the petitioners accepted the contractual appointments without objection and did not seek to convert these into permanent posts. The University’s transition from a State to a Central University and subsequent creation of permanent posts in 2011 was relevant, as prior to that there were no sanctioned permanent posts in the Pharmaceutical Science Department. The Court held that the petitioners’ efforts to claim regularization before the creation of permanent posts were ill-advised and found no basis to interfere with the contractual nature of the appointments.
Holding and Implications
The writ petitions are DISMISSED and the interim order granted earlier is vacated. The decision directly affects the petitioners by upholding the contractual status of their appointments and denies their claim for regularization. No new legal precedent was established by this judgment.
JUDGMENT
BARIN GHOSH, C.J (Oral)
Since similar issue is involved in all these writ petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. An Advertisement was published on 19th May, 2006, insofar as Writ Petition (SB) Nos. 275 of 2011 and 276 of 2011 are concerned; whereas, insofar as Writ Petition (SB) Nos. 277 of 2011 and 97 of 2012 are concerned, the advertisement was published on 4 February, 2004. The Advertisements invited applications for supplying vacancies in the posts of, amongst others, Lecturers. The said Advertisements were responded by the writ petitioners in these writ petitions. Some time in 2004 and 2007, they were, however, offered contractual appointments. It was indicated that the terms and conditions of the offer are not negotiable. Petitioners joined, but, at the same time, contended that the Advertisements did not indicate that the posts, advertised, are contractual posts. Be that as it may, petitioners did not take any step to have their contractual appointments converted into regular permanent appointments. On 29 August, 2011, the University published yet another Advertisement inviting applications for supplying, amongst others, the posts of Associate Professor. Petitioners are contending that the said Advertisement purports to invite applications for supplying those posts, where the petitioners are working on contractual basis. On 27 September, 2011, an interim order was passed. On 31st October, 2011, the interim order was made limited only to the posts, which, according to the petitioners, were occupied by them. The fact remains that the contractual employment of the petitioners has not yet been brought to an end.
3. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the University started B.Pharma Course from the Session 1997 by appointing various teaching and non-teaching persons on contract. It has been stated that the persons, who were appointed for B.Pharma Courses between 1997-2003 on year-to-year basis, are not continuing as they all have left. It has been stated that the Advertisements, which were responded by the petitioners, were in respect of employees to be engaged on self-financing scheme. It has been stated that the offers of appointment given to the petitioners had been accepted by them. It has been specifically stated that, at or before joining, no protest petition was submitted by the petitioners. It has been stated that initially the contractual appointments of the petitioners had been extended till further orders or till finances are available. It has been stated that the contractual appointments of the petitioners were then extended for one year from 19 May, 2010 to 18 May, 2011 and, thereafter, for further six months by an order dated 6 June, 2011. This aspect of the matter has not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners. It has been stated that, on 15 January, 2009, the University ceased to be a State University and became a Central Government University. It has been stated that the University Grants Commission has accepted the proposal of the University to create 58 posts, some of which include the posts available in the Pharmaceutical Science Department. It has been stated that the same happened only on 27 April, 2011 and, accordingly, since then, permanent posts are available in the University and steps have been taken to fill-up those posts. It is the specific contention of the University that, prior to 27 April, 2011, there was no permanent post of Lecturers or Associate Professors in Pharmaceutical Science Department of the University and, accordingly, question of appointing any person on permanent basis in that Department did not arise. These factual aspects have not been disputed in the rejoinder affidavit filed. We, accordingly, are not in a position to express an opinion that the petitioners were appointed against any permanent vacancies available in the respondent University.
4. That being so, since on self-financing basis the University had started the Pharmaceutical branch, it engaged employees therefor on contractual basis. The offers given to the petitioners were for contractual appointments and the same were also accepted by the petitioners. After the University became a Central University, then only it could procure appropriate approval for establishment of a permanent Pharmaceutical Science Department with permanent sanction of teachers to teach in the said Department. The effort made to fill-up those posts available in the said Department by the petitioners by filing the writ petitions is ill adviced.
5. The writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. The interim order is vacated.
Alert