- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Surender Nikhil Gupta v. Union Of India And Others
Structured Summary of the Opinion (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
Concise narrative based solely on the provided opinion.
Petitioner had been engaged on a contractual basis as a Medical Officer at the ECHS Polyclinic, Yol Cantt., under the Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS). The petitioner’s specific contractual appointment covered the period 8.5.2019 to 7.4.2020 (11 months) pursuant to an agreement executed on 8.5.2019. Earlier temporary engagements for the petitioner included 1.10.2018–28.12.2018 and a further temporary extension from 29.12.2018–27.3.2019. The selection process held on 28.1.2019 placed the petitioner at reserve-1; subsequently a formal 11-month contract was executed.
Respondents conducted a fresh selection board on 6.12.2019 for the post effective 8.4.2020. Six candidates (including the petitioner) were considered; the petitioner did not qualify and Dr. Brij Mohan Sharma was selected and appointed effective 8.4.2020. The petitioner challenged the fresh advertisement, selection and sought (i) a stay/restraint on disengagement of his contractual services on expiry of 7.4.2020, (ii) restoration of status quo ante if services were terminated before hearing, and (iii) quashing of the fresh advertisement.
The opinion also records the relevant administrative framework: ECHS operates under Central Organization ECHS (Ministry of Defence) policies; earlier government letters and internal instructions (dated 22.9.2003, 24.5.2011 and 22.12.2017) govern duration and renewal/extension practices for contractual employees, including provisions limiting civilian appointments against ESM vacancies to 11 months and prescribing that employees who had completed two years by 31.3.2018 must apply afresh under the 2017 instructions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the court should restrain the respondents from disengaging the petitioner on the expiry of his contractual tenure on 7.4.2020 (i.e., grant a stay of termination pending the petition).
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of status quo ante (continuation of service) in the event his contractual tenure is allowed to terminate before the petition can be heard (particularly given the lockdown situation mentioned by petitioner).
- Whether the notification calling for a fresh advertisement and the consequent selection process (leading to appointment of Dr. Brij Mohan Sharma w.e.f. 8.4.2020) should be quashed as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable.
- Whether the petitioner had any vested or enforceable right to continuation of service beyond the contractual period prescribed by the agreement and applicable ECHS instructions.
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
Step-by-step summary of the court's analysis, confined to the content of the opinion.
- The court first identified the contractual nature and specific temporal bounds of the petitioner’s appointment: an 11-month contractual term from 8.5.2019 to 7.4.2020, as governed by the executed agreement and by ECHS circulars/instructions.
- The terms of the agreement were examined; the court highlighted clauses that (a) permitted termination by the ECHS on 30 days' notice or payment in lieu of notice, (b) stated the engagement was temporary and contractual and that the appointee had no right to approach any court for extension of service beyond the stipulated contractual period, and (c) confirmed the contractual appointment and continuation would be governed exclusively by the terms set out in the agreement.
- Having recorded that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted those contractual terms, the court concluded that the agreement did not confer any vested right to an extension of service beyond the stated tenure.
- The court noted that the respondents had conducted a fresh selection process on 6.12.2019 in accordance with applicable instructions. The petitioner participated in that very selection process and did not qualify; Dr. Brij Mohan Sharma was selected and appointed effective 8.4.2020.
- The court reasoned that, given the petitioner’s voluntary participation in the fresh selection process, it was not open to him to seek quashing of the advertisement and selection process merely because he remained unsuccessful. The court emphasized that appointment was made in accordance with merit as determined by the selection board and approved by the competent authority.
- The court observed that there was no allegation that the petitioner’s services had been terminated before the expiry of the contract; the termination would flow from the natural expiry of the agreed contractual term. On these bases—contractual limits, absence of any pre-expiry termination, voluntary contractual acceptance, and participation in the renewal selection—the court found no legal basis to sustain the petitioner’s challenge.
- The court noted that it was unnecessary to refer to other pleadings concerning alleged complaints made against or by the petitioner, given the dispositive nature of the contractual and procedural facts on record.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED — The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Direct consequences as stated in the opinion:
- The petition is dismissed and the petitioner is not entitled to continuation of service beyond the contractual expiry of 7.4.2020.
- The selection process held by the respondents and the appointment of the successful candidate (Dr. Brij Mohan Sharma effective 8.4.2020) stand; the selected candidate had been given appointment and was not made a party to the petition.
- The parties were directed to bear their own costs and any pending applications were disposed of.
Broader implications: The opinion did not articulate or announce any new legal precedent or broader rule beyond the application of the contractual terms and the governing ECHS instructions to the facts of this case. No novel principle of law was laid down in the text of the opinion.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.:— Petitioner's contractual appointment for a period of 11 months as Medical Officer in Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) Polyclinic at Yol Cantt. District Kangra came to end on 7.4.2020. Fresh selection process was held by the respondents, selecting and appointing one Dr. Brij Mohan Sharma, who statedly has assumed his duties w.e.f. 8.4.2020. Against this backdrop, petitioner has prayed for quashing of fresh advertisement as well as for restoration of status-quo-ante prior to 7.4.2020.
2. The respondents launched Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) in 2003 for rendering Medical Health Care through a network of service and Civil Empanelled Hospitals. ECHS functions in accordance with the policies framed by the Central Organization ECHS under the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Exservicement Welfare.
3. Under this scheme contractual employment of staff is made for ECHS Polyclinics.
4. Para-4 of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 22.9.2003 in respect of duration of contractual period provides that “when requisite percentage of ex-servicemen are not available, specific certificate signed by GOC Area would be placed on record and thereafter the vacancies utilized by employing a suitable civilian. The GOC Area's sanction would be valid for a period of eleven months only. During this period efforts will be made to appoint a suitable Ex-serviceman.”
5. Para-8 of the above mentioned letter spells out the terms and conditions for contractual employment. Para 8(d) pertaining to duration of employment reads as under:—
“Duration of employment. The employment of the staff will be entirely contractual in nature and will be normally for a period of two years at the maximum, subject to review of their conduct and performance after eleven months.”
6. On 24.5.2011, respondents issued instructions regarding tenure of contractual employees at ECHS Polyclinics. As per these instructions “employment will be normally for a period of two years at the maximum. Subsequently owing to limited availability of candidates and consequent expenditure on advertisements etc., the Govt. permitted extension of contractual employment upto age of superannuation subject to review of conduct and performance.”
7. Instructions were again issued in respect of employment of contractual employees at ECHS establishments on 22.12.2017. Following clause governed the duration of employment:—
“9. GOI. has specified the duration of contractual employment as two years wherein second year extn is granted based on satisfactory performance in the first year.
10. The enhanced duration as per letter at Para 1(d) (Letter No. B/49760/AG/ECHS (R)(i) dt 24 May 2011) will no longer be applicable w.e.f. 01 Apr 2018 onwards. All contractual employees who have completed/will complete two years as on 31 Mar 2018 (Extension granted in the same Polyclinic or in more than one Polyclinic based on previous performance) will mandatorily apply afresh if they want the contractual employment and will participate in the selection process on merit. This is essential to ensure that qualitative improvements are ensured in the ‘manning profile’ of ECHS establishments. After selection on merit next two years will be handled at par for new contractual employment, i.e. second year extn. based on satisfactory performance in the first year. Medical Specialists/Gynecologists/Radiologists will be also paid remuneration in the first year as approved and the second year as per the second year. All employees who are screened and selected will be at par in all considerations as employed for first year.
32. Civil candidates will not be appointed against ESM vacancies. Once BOO is approved by the sanctioning authority, sanction will be taken from sanctioning authority based on certificate in terms of Para 4 of Annexure I to GOI, MOD letter No. 22(6)/03/OS(WE)/D(Res) dated 22 Sep 2003 amended from time to time. After this, vacancies will be available for the posts tenable by ESM for civilians. Civilians selected in lieu of ESM vacancy will be eligible to serve only till 11 months from the date of appt. The said vacancy will fall vacant thereafter for being made available to ESM.”
8. It was clearly directed in the above instructions/circular that all the contractual employees, who have completed or will complete two years contractual employment as on 31.3.2018, will mandatorily have to apply afresh. The enhanced duration under letter dated 24.5.2011, was not available w.e.f. 1.4.2018 onwards. After selection on merit, next two years will be dealt with at par for new contractual employment i.e. second year extension based on satisfactory performance in the first year.
9. In terms of above applicable instructions of 22.12.2017, petitioner was appointed as Medical officer on temporary basis for duration of 89 days in ECHS Polyclinic Yol Cantt. w.e.f. 1.10.2018 to 28.12.2018.
10. The respondents started a proper selection process/screening at the headquarter for contractual employment for a period of 11 months under the 2017 instructions. Pending finalization of this selection process, temporary employment of the petitioner was extended by further 89 days i.e. from 29.12.2018 to 27.03.2019.
11. In the selection process, petitioner also appeared on 28.01.2019 and was placed at reserve-1 category. He was eventually appointed on contract basis as Medical officer at ECHS Polyclinic Yol Cantt. for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 8.5.2019 to 7.4.2020. A specific agreement in respect of this contractual appointment indicating the terms and conditions thereof was executed between the petitioner and the respondents on 8.5.2019. Some of the relevant Clauses of the agreement relating to contractual nature and duration of the appointment are reproduced hereinafter:—
“3. The ECHS reserve the right to terminate the appointee by giving 30 days notice of by paying remuneration for 30 days in lieu of notice any time during the tenure even without assigning any reason or misconduct or failure to perform assigned duties to the satisfaction of the Station Commander acting through the Officer-in-Charge Polyclinic/nominated Officer.
15. The engaged Person shall indemnify ECHS against all third party claims or proceeding in respect of his professional negligence, misconduct or deficiency in service. The engaged person declared and acknowledgement that the engagement under this contract is temporary and contractual in nature and that he/she will therefore have no right to approach any court of law for extension of his/her service in ECHS beyond the contractual period stipulated in this agreement. This agreement constituted the entire agreements, understanding, negotiations correspondence or discussions whether written or oral relative to the subject matter hereof.
17. The engaged person will also have the right to terminate this agreement before the expiry of tenure of contractual appointment by giving one month's notice or by foregoing one month's contractual amount as consideration for engagement of service.
19. The contractual appointment and continuation thereof, if any, shall be governed exclusively by the terms and conditions stated herein above.”
12. Since tenure of contractual appointment of the petitioner was till 7.4.2020, therefore, the Selection Board was held by the respondents on 6.12.2019. Six candidates applied for the post of Medical Officer at ECHS Polyclinic Yol Cantt including the petitioner. Petitioner did not qualify the selection board. One Dr. Brij Mohan Sharma emerged successful and was given appointment for a contractual period of 11 months w.e.f. 8.4.2020. Dr. Sharma statedly has joined his duties accordingly on 8.4.2020. Feeling aggrieved, instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner in person with following prayers:—
“(i) By way of court directions to restrain army authorities not to disengage my contractual services as Medical Officer at Poly Clinic, ECHS, Yol Cantt which is going to expire on 7th April, 2020 (Annexure A-4 and A-5) may kindly be stayed during the pendency of the petition.
(ii) Keeping in view the unprecedented medical, social and economic disaster like situation on account of ongoing Corona virus pandemic across the globe including India and Himachal Pradesh, in case my petition is not taken up for hearing before 14th April, 2020 due to lockdown/curfew in the State, the status quo ante is requested before 7th April, 2020 in the event of termination of services on 7th April, 2020.
(iii) The Notification calling for fresh advertisement of contractual appointment (Annexure A-6, page 9) to the said post may kindly be held illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is required to be quashed and set aside.”
13. We have heard the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record of the case. Relevant factual position is:-
14. Petitioner was appointed only on contractual basis for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 8.5.2019 to 7.4.2020. This period has come to an end. Contractual service and its extension, if any, was governed by the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondents. The agreement does not give any vested right to the petitioner to seek extension in the period of contractual service.
15. Selection Board of Officer for selecting suitable candidate against the post of Medical officer in ECHS Polyclinic Yol Cantt. w.e.f. 8.4.2020 was held by the respondents on 6.12.2019. No demur or protest was raised by the petitioner against holding of the fresh selection process. Rather petitioner himself participated in the fresh selection process alongwith five other candidates. Petitioner did not qualify in the reserve list of selection board. It is only after remaining unsuccessful in the selection process that he preferred this writ petition, seeking quashing of advertisement and the selection process held under it besides praying for extension of his contractual service.
16. Indisputably, petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer in ECHS Polyclinic on contract basis only for 11 months duration i.e. till 7.4.2020. The duration of contractual appointment was as per applicable ECHS circular. Petitioner and respondents had also executed an agreement governing nature and duration of contractual employment of the petitioner. Petitioner had voluntary accepted the terms and conditions of his contractual appointment. It is not the case of the petitioner that his services were terminated before the expiry of contract. Under the circumstances, petitioner cannot be said to have any vested right to continue in service beyond his agreed & accepted contractual tenure. He has himself participated in the fresh selection process held by the respondents on 6.12.2019. After participating in the fresh selection process under the advertisement, it is even otherwise not open for the petitioner to seek quashing of the advertisement and fresh selection process after remaining unsuccessful therein. Candidate as per merit in the fresh selection process duly approved by the competent authority has been given appointment w.e.f. 8.4.2020. This candidate has not even been made a party to the writ petition.
17. In view of above facts, which have come on record, it is not necessary for us to refer to the other pleadings in respect of complaints allegedly made against or by the petitioner.
18. For the foregoing observations, we find no merit in the instant writ ptition and the same is dismissed accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Alert