AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:
The applicant is a Post Graduate inAnaesthesiology. She was engaged as Senior Resident for a period of two months, through an order dated 03.03.2016.It was extended from time to time and for another 44 days from 04.03.2017 to 16.04.2017. Through an order dated 17.03.2017, the extension of the engagement of the applicant till 16.04.2017 was cancelled. This OA is filed challenging the order dated 17.03.2017.
The applicant contends that the respondents have passed the impugned order only when she applied for maternity leave. Other contentions were also raised.
The respondents filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the claim of the applicant for continuation of contractual engagement is not as per the provisions of law. At any rate, the contractual appointment cannot be continued indefinitely.
We heard Sh. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. K.M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
The very engagement of the applicant was to be on contractual basis, that too, for a period of two months on each occasion. With almost half a dozen extensions, it was to remain in force up to 16.04.2017. For whatever reasons, the respondents have cut short the engagement by about 44 days. Assuming that the impugned order is bad in law, the only benefit the applicant could have got was that, she was entitled to work till 16.04.2017. Beyond that date, the respondents have every right whether or not to extend the engagement. It is fairly well settled that persons who are engaged on contractual basis of this nature, do not have any right to be continued beyond the stipulated period. Much would depend on the availability of work and satisfaction of the concerned agency.
We do not find any merit in the OA and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.