AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.—The prayer in W.P, No. 18969 of 1994 is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the
services of the petitioners in their respective categories as they are working now in the service of the Indian Council of Medical Research, CJIL
Field Unit or any other unit before the expiry of the last extended period of March 31, 1994 to March 31, 1995 with continuity of service and
statutory service entitlements and benefits.
The prayer in W.P. No. 15648 of 1995 is to call for the records of the respondents in CFU/Scheme/ESTT/94-95/83 dated March 27, 1995 in
respect of the petitioners and quash the same and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to regularise the service of the petitioners in
their respective categories in the Indian Council of Medical Research, CJIL Field Unit or any other unit with continuity of service and all the
entitlements and benefits.
The petitioners were recruited by the Central Jalma Institute for Leprosy (CJIL) for its Leprosy Vaccine Trial in the Institute under the wing of
the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). They were recruited for the very scheme and now after working for over three years and inspite
of their filing W.P, No. 18969 of 1994 for a mandamus for regularisation of their services, they were by order dated March 27, 1995 ousted from
service and now face a future where there is no chance of employment having crossed the age periphery for any job.
The Petitioners right for regularisation spring from the fact that they were working in a scheme, which is an on-going one and which would at a
conservative estimate last two decades more and the posts to which they were recruited temporarily are permanent posts. The Leprosy Vaccine
Trial is the only one of its kind in India which has one of the world''s largest incidence of leprosy and this Scheme is not one that can be wound up
once it was started. After languishing in the Employment Exchange Register for several years, they were all sponsored by the Employment
Exchange and recruited after a written test and an interview. Except a few in the cadre of drivers and clerks, all the Field Investigators are
graduates and petitioners 4, 13, 16 and 25 are post graduates. There is no specified qualification prescribed for the posts. They were recruited in
conformity with the relevant reservation quotas and there had been no infrac tion of any rule in the manner of recruitment. There are no adverse
remarks against them during the last three years. They all have crossed the age for employment elsewhere. The details relating to the date of birth
and other details of the petitioners are furnished as Annexure ''A'' to the writ petition.
ICMR is a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, on December 20, 1949. Its objects inter alia are the prosecution and
assistance of research, the propagation of knowledge and experimental measures generally in connection with the causation, mode of spread and
prevention of diseases, primarily of those of communicable nature and to initiate, aid, develop and co-ordinate medical scientific -research in India
and to promote and assist insti-rations for the study of diseases, their prevention, causation and remedy. Under Object IX, the funds of the Council
are to be held by the Government of India. The President of the Council is the Health Minister, Govt. of India. The Vice President is the Joint
Secretary to the Health Ministry, Govt. of India. Apart form these top Government officers, the governing body consists of the Director General of
Health -Services, Financial Advisor to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
Director Genera! of Armed Forces Medical Services, a few other Government Officers and the Addl. Director General of ICMR. The Director
General of ICMR is the Member-Secretary. Thus, it is a conglomeration of the country''s cream of Government officers and none else, giving the
ICMR the status of ''other authority'' mentioned in Article 12 of the Constitution, whose fractious actions can be remedied by writ commands. The
ICMR is amenable to writ jurisdiction.
The petitioners have registered themselves at the District Employment Office, Kancheepu ram and Trivellore and they were sponsored by the
Employment Exchange for the Leprosy Vaccine Trial Scheme of the CJIL Field Unit of the ICMR. All the petitioners were recruited after a written
examination, followed by interview. Twenty two petitioners were designated as Field Investigators. Besides, there were 6 Field Workers, 5
Drivers, 3 Field Assistants and a Research Officer. They were given training for three months by the ICMR in villages in census taking, vaccination,
finger printing, motivation of the locals, mapping of the area, taking of smear samples and reassessment of the area visited after the initial work, etc.
The Scheme is to cover every denizen of the villages assigned to the petitioners so as to keep a tab on the disease prone, to catch them young as it
were, in order that the treatment for leprosy, which is totally curable, can be started at an early stage and preventive steps taken to contain it. This
Scheme was never intended to be an experimental one, for, Tamil Nadu leads the country in the incidence of leprosy, and the treatment is of long
duration, which requires monitoring. It was, therefore, not merely on a medical mission the Scheme was mooted but as a social revolution that
wanted to spiead the message among the unfortunate victims and their suffering relatives, that there is nothing reprehensible about the disease,
which is only a skin disorder, i.e., with patience and cooperation of the people, curable. The petitioners are, therefore, not only technical hands
dealing physically with the patients, but social workers with a mission and engaged in pioneer work in a field that was, until the Scheme was started
in 1991, severely left alone by all as in-fra dig.
It is stated that many people are employed as Field Investigators on a permanent basis in the organisation. As all appointments are usually made
on temporary basis and every year the same was renewed for one more year, the work in the Scheme not having got off the base and at least two
decades of work remains to be done, the petitioners were under a bona fide and legitimate expectation led to believe that what they were going
through was only a normal uncertainty in Government employment where years pass before a person''s service is regularised. Their legitimate
expectation was that since they had all been recruited through the Employment Exchange as required under law and they are all graduates and
within the age limit for entry into service and had been recruited against the service quota for the reserved categories, they would be absorbed into
service by the respondents on a permanent basis as the need for their services in 1991 for the Leprosy Vaccine Trial Scheme continues. It is not as
though leprosy is controlled and eradicated and the Scheme is no longer in force.
When the petitioners learn that there would be no further extension beyond March 31, 1995, they met the respondent in April, 1994 to verify
the veracity of the floater and the respondent told that the petitioners that the Director General of ICMR, New Delhi, is against extension of their
services beyond 1995 on fiscal grounds. The petitioners, therefore, made written representations to the Officer-in-charge CJIL Field Unit, Avadi,
seeking regularisation, pointing out the hardship that would befall all if not regularised and are axed. The petitioners understand that the said officers
had written to the Director General recommending regularisation of the service of all as the Scheme is a live one and extremely useful, which
requires to be continued.
Since the recommendation has not evoked any written response, the petitioners were obliged to file W.P. No. 18969 of 1994 for a mandamus
to regularise their service. They also filed W.M.P.NO. 28843 of 1994 for an injunction to restrain the respondents from terminating their service
on March 31, 1995. They filed W.M.P. No. 28844 of 1994 for continuing their employment beyond March 31, 1995 pending disposal of the writ
petition. J. Kanakaraj, J. by order dated November 16, 1994 granted interim direction in W.M.P. No. 28844 of 1994 and ordered notice in
W.M.P. No. 28843 of 1994. When the matter came up on March 20, 1995, R. Jayasimha Babul., dismissed W.M.P. No. 28844 of 1994,
against which the petitioners filed W.A. No. 288 of 1995, which was dismissed in limine on March 30, 1995 with a direction to dispose of the writ
petition by April 4, 1995 uninfluenced by anything mentioned in W.M.P.NO. 28844 of 1994. On March 27, 1995, even when the said writ
Appeal was pending, in which the respondent had entered a caveat, the present impugned orders were passed and they were served on the
petitioners after the dismissal of the writ Appeal. The petitioners, therefore, filed W.P.No. 15648 of 1995 to quash the order of termination.
Mr. M.A. Sadanand, learned council for the petitioners, contended that the order of termination is eminently quashable on the following
grounds:
(a) The Scheme is not completed.
(b) The Scheme was neither completed nor terminated on March 27, 1995, the date on which the respondent passed the termination order while
W.A. No. 288 of 1995 was sub-judice and he was a Caveator. This pre-emptive action was to overreach this Court and a clear action of mala
fide. On the date of the impugned order, the order of J. Kanakaraj, J., in W.M.P. No. 28843 of 1994 dated November 16, 1994 restraining the
respondents in W.P. No. 18969 of 1994 from terminating the services of the petitioners was alive, as it had not been disposed of by R. Jayasimha
Babu, J. The termination of the petitioners'' services on March 27, 1995 was, therefore, a gross evidence of contempt of the orders of the learned
Judge of this Court. It was only subsequent to the dismissal that the said order was vacated, but the contempt stood only reinforced.
(c) The non-speaking order of termination is a classic in arbitrariness and an exposition of the fall out of the Henry VIII Clause in the appointment
order that is an aberration in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and
Another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, , which had held that such a clause in a contract of service is against public interest and falls foul of
Section 23 of the Contract Act.
(d) The order of termination is admittedly when the scheme is in force and there are two more years of its shortened span to elapse. The
appointment orders not being for segmented phases but for the whole Scheme, there cannot be an ouster midstream. The action is arbitrary.
(e) All the Field Investigators are graduates and though there are no prescribed qualifications, they cannot be faulted for that. They were eligible
and qualified for the post at the time of their appointment.
(f) The petitioners'' appointment was in conformity with the reservation rule in the respondents'' organisation.
(g) The petitioners'' record of service is satisfactory as there have been no complaints from any quarter against any of the petitioners.
(h) The petitioners have all crossed the age for entry into any Government or quasi-Govemment service, and if the petitioners should, at this
juncture in their career be dropped, they have no means of livelihood which is akin to the right to life protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.
This situation has been brought about by the respondents extending as a matter of routine, petitioners'' service beyond the first year giving rise to a
legitimate expectation that they would be absorbed into the regular service in the Scheme that is an on-going one. The need is not ad hoc or
temporary. This Court would tilt in favour of the petitioners'' physical existence rather than the respondents'' fiscal reason, even if it is true.
(i) The petitioners have all lost their registration at the Employment Exchange and even if it can be revived, their seniority is lost.
(j) After the termination of petitioners'' services, the respondents has recruited five persons to do the very work, which the petitioners have been
doing and which, according to the respondent, opes not need any hands. This action is perfidious and vitiated by mala fides,
Mr. M.A. Sadanand, learned Council for the petitioners, cited the decisions reported in Inder Pal Yadav and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI)
and Others, and Jacob M. Puthuparambil and others Vs. Kerala Water Authority and others, . Winding up this argument, Mr. M.A. Sadanand
made a fervent appeal to the respondent through this Court that the petitioners may be absorbed in any other Unit if not in the present Unit.
According to Mr. M.A. Sadanand, the petitioners are all poor who had implicit faith in the sense of justice which a public sector undertaking would
normally have and they had dedicated themselves to the Scheme and in the process, made themselves unfit for any other avocation in life as society
does not accept readily who intermingle with Lepers. Therefore, they, who have less in life, should have more in law and this Court, the fountain of
justice, would grant them the benediction of the dignity of the individual promised in the preamble to the Constitution and exhorted by Articles 39
and 41 of the Constitution of India by accepting the contention made in their affidavit as truthful regarding the fact that the Scheme is not completed
or terminated, and pass an order to extend their tenure.
In support of his contention for extension , of service, Mr. M.A. Sadanand invited my attention to the statement made in paragraph 8 of the
counter affidavit in W.P.No. 15648 of 1995 and in W.M.P. No. 24895 of 1995 wherein it is stated that eventhough the total number of leprosy
patients at any given point of time are brought down substantially, new cases of leprosy have been occurring more or less at the same rate in the
CJIL Field Unit area in particular and various leprosy endemic districts in general.
The Deputy Director (Senior Grade), CJIL Field Unit, filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the affidavits filed in
support of both the writ petitions. Mr. S. Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in reply to the arguments of Mr. M.A.
Sadanand, answered all the contentions with specific reference to the documents filed and the counter affidavits. He has also invited my attention to
the various documents filed in the typed set, particularly the proceedings dated September 15, 1991 of the ICMR with regard to the sanction and
budget allotment for the scheme in question and for the subsequent years 1991-92, form April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1993, from April 1, 1993 to
March 31, 1994, etc., and the order of appointment of staff in the Research Scheme dated May 31, 1991, order renewing the appointment for the
years from April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1993, from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994, and from April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1995.
A perusal of the order of appointment would go to show that the Director of the Central Jalma Institute for Leprosy, Tajganj, Agra, has
sanctioned the appointment of the persons like the petitioners on a purely temporary ad hoc and year to year basis to work in the Research
Scheme, on a consolidated salary per month and that the appointment will get automatically terminated on March 31 of every year and may be
renewed on the first April in the Subsequent year.
The appointment is subject to the following terms and conditions of service:
The post is purely temporary and on yearly renewable basis. However, the Director reserves the right to dispense with his services at any time
without assigning any reason before the end of the year 7 before the termination of the project.
He will be normally posted anywhere within the area of the Field Unit, Avadi, Madras, but may be posted at any other place as may be required
in the interest of work.
The appointee under the ''Scheme'' will not have any benefits like CPF/GPF, Medical Benefits, Bonus, LTC, etc.
The staff employed under Research Scheme are not employees of the CJIL Field Unit / ICMR and the employment of the staff after the
completion or termination of the scheme will not be the responsibility of either CJIL Field Unit or ICMR. The staff employed on this scheme shall
not have any claim for appointment in CJIL Field Unit / ICMR.
The appointment can be terminated at any time by giving one month notice on either side. The services of the employees can be terminated
forthwith or before the expiry of notice period by making payment to the employees of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowance for unexpired
portion of the notice thereof. However, the employees cannot surrender pay and allowances in lieu of the period of notice or unexpired portion
thereof and may be required to serve for the full period of notice.
Service rendered under this scheme will not count for any purpose including seniority, leave, grant of increment, fixation of pay, etc., if appointed
to regular vacancies in the CJIL Field Unit or ICMR.
The appointment of the petitioners was renewed from April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1993 and thereafter till March 31, 1995, subject to the
same terms and conditions as laid down in their previous appointment letters.
In this background, I now proceed to consider the contentions of Mr. M.A. Sadanand and the rival submissions of Mr. S. Jayaraman.
Though a contention was raised in regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions, that the ICMR is not an authority under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, no serious arguments were advanced on this issue by both parties. Therefore, I refrain from giving my finding on this issue
and proceed to consider the matter on merits.
The prayer in W.P. No, 15648 of 1995 is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus. The prayer, in my opinion, will arise only when there is a
statutory or public duty or obligation cast upon the respondents and they have failed to discharge the same.
In this case, as could be seen from the facts, the employees were engaged on contract basis on and from various dates from May 31, 1991 to
June 15, 1992, and which is evidenced from the orders issued to the petitioners. The orders themselves clearly state that the petitioners are
engaged only for a specific period. The said contract was renewed at the end of the earlier contract period if there was any necessity for renewing
the same. Moreover, this is only a private contract of employment entered into as between the respondent and the concerned petitioners. The
contract itself has stipulated various terms and conditions. It clearly states that the posts are temporary. Moreover, the Officer-in-charge, has also
got a right to dismiss or dispense with the services of the petitioners at any time without assigning any reason before the end of the year or before
the termination of the project. The appointees under the scheme will not have any benefits like contributory provident fund, general provident fund,
medical benefits, bonus, leave travel concession, etc. It is also made clear in the contract that the staff employed in Research Scheme are not
employees of CJIL, which is a Field Unit of ICMR, and the employment of the staff after completion or termination of the Scheme will not be the
responsibility of either the CJIL Field Unit or the ICMR.
The staff employed in this case shall not have any claim for appointment in CJIL or ICMR. The other condition is, that their appointments can
be terminated at any time by giving one month''s notice on either side. It further states that the services of the employees can be terminated
forthwith or before the expiry of the notice period by making payment to the employees of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the
unexpired portion of the notice thereof. However, the employee cannot surrender the pay and allowance in lieu of the period of notice or unexpired
portion thereof and may be required to serve the full period of notice. The other important clause is that the services rendered under the Scheme
will not count for any -purpose including seniority, leave, grant of in-crement, fixation of pay, etc., if appointed on regular vacancies in
CJIL/ICMR.
A careful perusal of the terms and conditions of appointment clearly reveals that it is"" only a contract of employment entered into between the
respondent and the petitioners. While it is true that the said contract of employment was renewed for the last two or three years, it, does not mean
that these employees get a vested right to employment. It is submitted that since it is only a private contract of employment, the petitioners cannot
invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as if public duty has been violated and seek a writ of mandamus directing
the respondents to regularise them. This amounts to invoking Court''s jurisdiction and seeking the Court to renew the contract, which has been
entered into between, the respondent and the petitioners, and seeking the Court''s direction to substitute the same by a new contract. As rightly
pointed out by Mr. S, Jayaraman, the above is clearly not permissible under law. It is too well settled that such aprayer as asked for in the present
writ petition, cannot be maintained in law.
Mr. S. Jayaraman, at the time of hearing, highlighted certain features and details with regard to this case. As narrated earlier, ICMR has in its
control various Research Institutions, Centres and Units, which are functioning throughout the country. One such Unit is CJIL at Agra. This Unit is
a part of Central Jalma Institute for Leprosy (CJIL), which is situate at Agra. The CJIL Field Unit is engaged in various epidemio-logi-cal studies
for leprosy. At present, its activities are concentrated at Sri Perumbudur and Kancheepuram Taluks of Chengai M.G.R. District.
The Unit is undertaking various studies with reference to transmission of leprosy and risk factors for leprosy using various immuno-
epidemiological studies. All the studies undertaken by CJIL Field Unit are essentially oriented towards assisting in research needs of the National
Leprosy Eradication Programme. One of the essential areas in which field Unit is interested is to undertake various intervention studies. Treatment
of leprosy using multi-drug theraphy has been effectively implemented by the Field Unit. The total load of leprosy prevalence, which was in the
range of about 12 per thousand population, has been brought down successfully around 1 to 2 per thousand population. This was achieved
because of the ability of multi-drug theraphy to cure patients of leprosy in a comparatively short period of time. It has been observed that
eventhough the total number of leprosy patients at any given point of time are brought down substantially, new cases of leprosy have been
occurring more or less at the same rate in the CJIL Field Unit area in particular and in various leprosy endemic districts in general.
It is submitted by Mr. S, Jayaraman, learned counsel for the respondents, that the Leprosy Vaccine Trial is a project undertaken by CJIL Field
Unit, which in turn is a unit of ICMR. The petitioners were recruited only for the leprosy vaccine trial project, which is a time bound one and they
have been recruited for a specific period.
It is further argued by Mr. S. Jayaraman, that a comparative vaccine trial against leprosy is an important activity of the CJIL Field Unit. Apart
from the permanent staff members of the Unit, it was necessary to recruit additional staff members for specified time limit, for which the petitioners
were recruited. For this purpose, an extra-mural project was sanctioned by the ICMR. This project was fully funded by the ICMR which in turn is
funded by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India. Since 1991, the CJIL Field Unit is involved in this important exercise.
It is contended by Mr. S. Jayaraman that four different promising anti-leprosy vaccines are being tested at community level by this Unit and this
project has been taken up as a time bound project. For effectively carrying out the project, the staff under various categories were recruited
following the usual Government procedure. All the staff except Technical Officer and equivalent and above were appointed on a consolidated
salary and all the staff were appointed on yearly renewable basis. It is thus the petitioners have been appointed pursuant to specific contract of
employment for a specific period, which was renewed pursuant to one of the conditions of contract of employment, which enables the respondents
to renew the period. As pointed out by Mr. S. Jayaraman, a mere perusal of the various terms and conditions specified in the contract of
employment clearly says that it is a time bound project work and the petitioners are engaged only for the specific purpose. As could be seen from
the terms and conditions, the petitioners have no vested right to claim permanent employment. It is also made clear in the contract of employment
that the petitioners have agreed and accepted while joining duty that the contract itself can be terminated either before the completion of the project
or at the expiry of the period of contract of employment or even earlier by giving necessary notice. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the
petitioners were engaged on the specific contract on a time bound project and for a specific period. The petitioners'' claim as if they are entitled to
regularisation and continuation in employment is totally unsustainable in law and also on the facts of the case.
In this connection, it is useful and necessary to refer to a judgment of this Court in S. Ramachandran v. The Director, Vector Control Research
Centre, Pondicherry (W.P. No. 13260 of 1985 dated April 9, 1986) cited by Mr. S. Jayaraman. This decision was rendered by K. Shanmukham,
J., on April 9, 1986. In that case, in one of the projects of ICMR, some of the employees who were recruited for a specific period for the project
as that of the present one, filed the writ petition seeking similar reliefs. This Court has dismissed that writ petition. While dismissing that writ
petition, this Court has clearly and categorically held that these employees are only employees engaged for a particular project and thus they have
no vested right for employment. The learned Judge has observed in more than one place that this is not a case of termination of employment or
service but the service itself is coming to an end at the expiry of the period of contract, which itself is time-bound in nature. The learned Judge has
held that after the expiry of the period of contract, the relationship between the employer and the employee is snapped once and for all. Therefore,
they have no locus standi either to claim permanency or continuation in employment or renewal or continuation of the project.
The above judgment of K. Shanmuk-ham, j., was also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of S. Mohan, J., (as he then
was) and S. Ramalingam, J., in W.A. No. 1215 of 1986 by judgment dated July 25, 1989. The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by
the workmen with costs. It is also necessary to point out here that the learned Judges have also taken into account the beneficial consideration and
implications viz., the funding of the project and the budgetary allocations, etc. The learned Judges have clearly referred to the fact that the project
itself is time-bound one and it cannot traverse beyond the budgetary allocation and there cannot be unnecessary expenditure to the Exchequer.
Citing the above decision, Mr. S. Jayaraman contended that there are absolutely no merits in the claim of the petitioners herein.
The petitioners'' allegation that the Scheme would last for two decades or more and that the posts for which they have been temporarily
recruited are permanent posts, is bereft of any merit. It is submitted by Mr. S. Jayaraman, that once the project is accomplished, it is not necessary
to continue the project in the State of Tamil Nadu. Secondly, if the ICMR decides to wind up the project, they are permitted to do so because the
project itself is funded by the ICMR, which in turn is controlled by the Govt. of India. Therefore if there is no budgetary allocation, the project can
be wound up. Hence, Mr. M.A. Sadanand''s contention that the project will last for two decades is absolutely devoid of any merit. Moreover, as
could be seen from the facts of this case, like any other project, the project-in-charge will have to submit a study report every year to the ICMR
and that project report is reviewed by a Technical Committee and later on by the Scientific Advisory Committee. The recommendations of the
three committees are reviewed by the ICMR before accepting the budget for the scheme every year. It is only after the perusal and assessment of
the said project, the budgetary allocation is made for the next year and year after year. If the budgetary allocation is stopped, the project will have
to be wound up. Thus, the project itself is contingent upon so many factors as enumerated above. Therefore, the petitioners'' contention in this
regard is totally unfounded.
Even assuming for a moment that the project is continued for more than a decade, it is not necessary or incumbent on the respondents to
continue all the petitioners in service. It is too well settled a principle that the determination of strength of labour force is the prerogative of the
management, and in fact, a management''s function. If, in the distribution any retrenchment is caused, the same is recognised by Courts and is also
permissible in law. Therefore, as rightly contended by Mr. S. Jayaraman, the petitioners are not entitled to be continued till the project is continued.
Moreover, as could be seen from the various documents and also from the facts of this case, the petitioners were appointed only for a specific
period on a specific contract, which is renewable at the instance of the respondents. The petitioners have agreed for the said terms and joined duty
with the extra-mural project of the CJIL Field Unit. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioners cannot claim that they are entitled to be continued
forever till the project is continued.
In so far as the contention of Mr. M.A. Sadanand with regard to the sponsoring by the Employment Exchange, etc., is concerned, it is
submitted by Mr. S. Jayaraman, that there is no necessity to traverse into those details. The respondents would submit that the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that merely because the petitioners have crossed the age of employment elsewhere and become unemployable
they can seek the intervention of this Court and seek regularisation, is untenable.
The allegation of the petitioners that the Scheme is expected to last for 20 years is denied by the respondents. It is submitted by Mr. S.
Jayaraman, that it is not necessary to deal with the same having regard to the nature and scope of the writ petition and suffice it to point out that
one cannot specifically say that the particular Scheme will last for a particular number of years and the expectation of the Scheme to continue for a
period is not itself sure and legitimate. Mr. S. Jayaraman would submit that the petitioners'' contention that they were under the impression that they
will be continued in employment in view of the fact that the project itself would last for two decades is misconceived for the reasons narrated
earlier. The allegation that since leprosy has not been eradicated totally in the country, the petitioners will be entitled to be continued in employment
is again bereft of any substance or merit.
Mr. S. Jayaraman would submit that the allegation of the petitioners that the respondents should be consistent with the requirement of Articles
14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, is again totally untenable because the respondents never violated any of those provisions. Moreover, the
petitioners are not entitled, as a matter of right, to employment having regard to the nature of contract which has been entered into between the
petitioners and the respondents. As stated earlier, the petitioners were engaged for the specific project of Leprosy Vaccine Trial of CJIL Field Unit
for a specific period. This project itself is time bound one and as could be seen from the orders issued to the petitioners, their engagement is also
time-bound one for a specified period. Hence, the petitioners invoking the above mentioned Articles 12, 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitutions is India
and complaining that the respondents have violated the above Articles and thereby seeking relief, cannot be maintained at all The allegation of the
petitioners that their names have been deleted in the Employment Exchange and therefore, they must be granted the relief is also unsustainable. As
pointed out, the petitioners will be given seniority from the date of registration if they report for re-registration to the Employment Exchange within
90 days from the date of ousting, as communicated by the Employment Exchange Office.
The petitioners have referred to the written representations made by them to the Officer-in-charge, who in turn contacted the ICMR. For this,
the respondents submit that if the ICMR decides either to stop funding the project or allocate lesser funds, the respondents will have no other
option excepting to discontinue the contract of all the employees or at least some of them as required.
In answer to the contention of Mr. M.A. Sadanand, Mr. S. Jayaraman would submit that the petitioners'' contention that they are only trained
persons in the job and therefore, there is justification and warrant for regularsation of their services, is not correct. Merely because the petitioners
have been engaged for more than, three years, it does not automatically vest any right to them. As narrated in detail in paragraphs supra, the
petitioners have neither a vested right nor a fundamental right to employment and consequently, they cannot seek any relief here.
The contention of Mr. M.A. Sadanand that the petitioners are graduates and that their appointments were also in conformity with the
reservation rules of the respondent organisation, cannot advance the case any further in view of the fact that the issue involved in this case is as to
whether the petitioners have any right at all viz., vested right or the fundamental right as they claim. In view of that, the petitioners'' claim that their
record of service has been satisfactory is also irrelevant. Mr. S. Jayaraman would submit that it is not correct that the record of all the petitioners is
satisfactory. There are cases that some of the petitioners have been found to be not upto the mark and some of them have also indulged in certain
irregularities, for which action had been taken separately.
Mr. M.A. Sadanand''s contention that if the petitioners are discontinued, the right to livelihood is taken away and the same has been brought
about by the respondents is again untenable. It is submitted by the respondents that the petitioners were fully conscious of the fact while signing the
contract of employment that they were engaged only for a specific period, renewable at the discretion and instance of the respondents and that too,
in a time bound project. The petitioners having signed the contract of employment, cannot now go back and say that the right to livelihood has
been taken away by the discontinuation of service. The petitioners'' contention that the respondents are estopped from discontinuing is absolutely
without any merit whatsoever. The respondents would submit that even if the registration of the petitioners in the Employment Exchange is
renewed, they lose the seniority is again without any substance in view of the facts stated above.
The contention of Mr. M.A. Sadanand that the order of appointment is unfair and onesided and hit by absence of consensus and therefore,
violative of Article 21 of the Constitution is without substance. A mere perusal of the appointment order would show that the petitioners have
consented for the same and the conditions have been clearly spelt out in that order. A perusal of the same would show that the above allegation of
the petitioners is incorrect.
The contention of the petitioners that they were led to believe by the respondents that they would be absorbed and in that belief they did not
seek employment elsewhere and consequently, the respondents are estopped from discontinuing them on and from March 31, 1995, is contrary to
all set proposition of law. It is submitted by Mr. S. Jayaraman, that initially the petitioners were appointed only for one year. The terms and
conditions of the contract are clearly specific that it may be renewed at the instance of the respondents if at all there is any requirement. The
petitioners having been fully aware of the above terms and having signed the contract, cannot now turn round and complain further that their
chances of employment elsewhere are deprived and therefore, the respondents are estopped from discontinuing there services.
The respondents also deny that permanent posts of Field Investigators are lying vacant in the project of the CJIL Field Unit. Under the plan
budget of CJIL Field Unit, some of the Field Investigators selected against the post of Technicians were promoted to the post of Technicians and
hence, there are no resultant vacancies. Therefore, Mr. S. Jayaraman would summit that the contentions of the petitioners are incorrect. The
allegation with regard to the promotion of nine Field Investigators to the post of Technicians in January-June, 1993 and 3 Field Officers as
Technicians in June, 1993, though may be true, will not be of any assistance to the petitioners because, they are permanent employees of ICMR
and they have been promoted in the regular posts. The further allegations that the above promotion belies the assumption of the respondents that
the petitioners cannot be absorbed as there are no vacancies in permanent posts, are again without substance. The respondents have denied that
there are many vacancies. Even assuming that there are vacancies as stated earlier, the petitioners cannot claim them as a matter of right much less
promotion or employment in permanent vacancies.
It is submitted by Mr. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the respondents, that there is no vested right or any fundamental right for the petitioners.
Therefore, they cannot claim any relief asked for by them in the present writ petitions. Moreover, even under the Industrial Disputes Act,
appointment on specific contract for a specific period comes within Section 2(oo)(bb) of the said Act and mere non-renewal of the contract
thereof will not amount to ''retrenchment'' Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the framers of the statute have made it clear that employment on this
type of contract does not vest the employees with any right whatsoever to posts. As stated earlier, the petitioners have absolutely no right for
employment and the very right itself is not there.
It is contended by Mr. S. Jayaraman, that the petitioners'' allegation that even while the Writ Appeal, which was filed as against the order
passed in W.M.P. No. 28844 of 1994, was pending, the respondent had terminated the services of the petitioners, is not correct. It is submitted
that though the communication is dated March 27, 1995 terminating the services of the petitioners, the actual termination came into effect only on
March 31, 1995, whereas, in the meantime, even on March 30, 1995, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Appeal
directing the learned Judge to dispose of the Writ Petition by April 4, 1995.
It is submitted by Mr. M.A. v. Sadanand, that the respondent had committed contempt of Court. I am of the view that it is not correct. The
two applications viz., W.M.P. Nos. 28843 and 28844 of 1994 were filed in W.P. No. 18969 of 1994. W.M.P. No. 28844 of 1994 is for
extension of the petitioners'' services beyond March 31, 1995 and W.M.P. No. 28843 of 1994 is for an injunction restraining the respondents
from terminating the services of the petitioners. R. Jayasimha Babu, J., after hearing both parties passed orders dismissing W.M.P. No. 28844 of
1994 i.e., the application for extension of services of the petitioners. Unfortunately, by clerical omission, the number of W.M.P. No. 28843 of
1994 was not incorporated in the order. The learned Judge has given various reasons as to why he had dismissed W.M.P. No. 28844 of 1994,
which is for extension of services of the petitioners beyond March 31, 1995. This itself would, in my opinion; clearly show that the question of
restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners pending the writ petition will not survive. The same, it appears, was
pointed out to the learned Judge after the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, that there , had been an omission in mentioning the number of W.M.P. No.
28843 of 1994 in the orders passed on November 16, 1994 in W.M.P. No. 28844 of 1994. R. Jayasimha Babu, J., was pleased to accept the
submission made on behalf of the respondents and recorded the same. Hence, I am of the view, that the respondents have not committed any
contempt as alleged. This apart, the termination came into effect only on and from March 31, 1995, whereas the Writ Appeal has been disposed
of even on March 30, 1995.
Reference to the judgments of the Apex Court by the petitioners^'' counsel referred to above cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners
having regard to the facts of the case. As stated earlier, the petitioners were engaged for a particular project for a specified period and the same
was renewable year after year, and their services were discontinued in accordance with the terms of the contract and as such, I am of the view,
that the allegations made by the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of this case. I am also of the view and it is well settled that the termination
of an employee, who was appointed for a particular project, after the purpose for which he was employed was over, in accordance with the
contract of employment will not amount to an arbitrary termination and such an employee does not have the vested right to continue in service.
The contention of Mr. M.A. Sadanand that if the petitioners are discontinued, the right to livelihood is taken away and the same has been
brought about by the respondents is untenable. The petitioners, in my view, were fully conscious of the fact that while signing the contract of
employment, they were engaged only for a specific period renewable at the discretion and instance of the respondents and that too, in a time
bound project. The petitioners having signed the contract of employment with such conditions, cannot now go back and say that the right to
livelihood has been taken away by the discontinuance of service. The petitioners'' contention that the respondents are estopped from discontinuing
is absolutely without any merit whatsoever.
The submission of Mr. M.A. Sadanand that even if the registration of the petitioners in the Employment Exchange is renewed, they lose the
seniority is again without any substance. Likewise, the further contention of the petitioners that the order of appointment is unfair and onesided and
hit by absence of consensus and therefore violative of Article 21 of the Constitution is without any merit. A mere perusal of the appointment order
would show that the petitioners have consented for the same and the condition have been clearly spelt out in the order. A perusal of the same
would show that the above allegations of the petitioners are incorrect.
The further contention of Mr. M.A Sadanand that the petitioners were led to believe by the respondents that they would be absorbed and in
that belief they did not seek employment elsewhere and consequently the respondents are estopped from discontinuing them on and from March
31, 1995 is contrary to all set propositions of law. As narrated earlier, the petitioners were appointed only for one year. The terms and conditions
of the contract are clearly specific that it may be renewed at the instance of the respondents if at all there is any requirement. The petitioners having
been fully aware of the above terms and having signed the contract, cannot, in my opinion, now turn round and complain that their chances of
employment elsewhere are deprived and therefore the respondents are estopped in discontinuing their services.
In regard to the allegation that the field work is going to be started at Pudukottai, Salem and Nilgiris, it is submitted by Mr. S. Jayaraman that
the projects which are to be undertaken in those places are not the projects undertaken by the organisation and that those projects are undertaken
by the respondents, for which some of the permanent Field Investigators of the respondents are sought for by that organisation and that for the
services rendered by the permanent Field Investigators of the respondents, that organisation would compensate the respondents as well as the
Field Investigators. Therefore, the petitioners'' allegation that their services would be required at Pudukottai, Salem and Nilgiris, is devoid of any
merit.
The judgment cited by Mr. S. Jayaraman, reported in Life Insurance Corporation and Another Vs. Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, of the Allahabad
High Court is directly on the point. In paragraph 10 that Court has observed at page 1140 as fol lows:
The next submission of the learned counsel of the appellant is that the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Institute of Management
Development, Uttar Pradesh (supra), determines the case of the parties may be seen. In this case Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that where the
ap- pointment is purely on ad hoc basis and is contractual and by efflux of time the appointment comes to an end the person holding such post can
have no right to continue on the said post, we have considered the submissions. The ratio of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court leaves no
room for doubt that the petitioner''s contractual employment on daily payment basis having come to an end by efflux of time, does not amount to
re-trenchment. Thus the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act is also not attracted.
In Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, , which was followed in the above judgment by the
Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court held that the appointment being contractual and ad hoc, which came to an end by efflux of time, the
respondents therein had no right to continue in the post and to claim regularisation in service in the absence of any rule providing for regularisation
after a specified period of service. However, in the above case, the respondent was directed to be continued in the service till the end of the
current calendar year on the same terms.
Before concluding, let me invite the attention of the respondents to the averments made in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed in W.M.P.
No. 24895 of 1995 in W.P. No. 15648 of 1995, wherein it is stated as follows:
It has been observed that even though the total number of leprosy patients at any given point of time are brought down substantially, new cases of
leprosy have been occurring more or less at the same rate in CJIL Field Unit area in particular and various leprosy endemic districts in general.
The above statement would show that the Scheme is likely to be continued further. If so, the respondents may sympathetically consider the re-
employment of the petitioners, who have all crossed the age for entry into any Government service, for such period should they so desire. In that
event, this judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents considering the case of the petitioners. However, I make it clear that it is not to be
understood that I have directed regularisation of the services of the petitioners.
The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no orders as to costs.