AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Prasoon Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna (‘IGIMS’ in short) and learned counsel for the State of Bihar.
The petitioner has filed CWJC no.632 of 2025 for the following reliefs :-
“A. For the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Advertisement No.02/Non Faculty/Estt./IGIMS/ 2024 dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure-P/7), issued by the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (Respondent No. 2), insofar as it pertains to the recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), as the process is arbitrary, unfair, and bad in law;
B. For the issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent No. 2 to continue the Petitioner on the respective post till the regular appointment is made on this post as the duties discharged by the Petitioner is perennial in nature;
C. For any other order(s), direction(s) as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
D. For the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other suitable writ, order, or direction to quash Memo No 351/Adm. dated 28.01.2025, issued by the Administrative Officer Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna (Respondent No. 4). insofar as it pertains to the recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), as the process is arbitrary, unfair and unlawful.
E. For the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other suitable writ, order, or direction to quash Memo No. 690/Adm. dated 24.02.2025, issued by the Director, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna (Respondent No. 3), insofar as it pertains to the recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), as the process is arbitrary, unfair and unlawful.
F. For the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other suitable writ, order, or direction, to quash Memo No. 727/Adm. dated 28.02.2025 issued by the Deputy Director (Administration). Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, as the entire selection process is arbitrary, unfair, and unlawful.
G. For the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other suitable writ, order, or direction, to quash the Office Order contained in Memo No. 945/Adm. dated 12.03.2025, issued by the Deputy Director (Administration), Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. Patna.”
The petitioner also filed CWJC no.756 of 2025 for the following reliefs :-
“A. For the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to regularise the service of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) or as per his entitlement, as the petitioner has been continuously discharging his duties since his appointment on a sanctioned vacant post pursuant to the appointment letter dated 03.10.2017;
B. For the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, direction to set aside the order dated 04.11.2024 issued by Respondent No. 4, whereby Respondent No. 4 denied regularisation to the petitioner merely on the ground that there is no provision permitting the regularisation of a contractual employee; [Annexure-P/17]
C. For any other order(s), direction(s) as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Both the writ applications filed by the petitioner for the reliefs as stated herein above pertaining to appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on contract basis, his continuance in the said capacity till regular appointment is made as also for the relief of regularisation as prayed for by him, both the writ applications are being taken up together and being decided by this common judgment.
Re: CWJC no.632 of 2025.
The case of the petitioner in brief is that the IGIMS came out with an advertisement in the year 2017 for appointment on various posts including that of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The petitioner being eligible in all respects applied for the same and after appearing in the written examination, he was selected on 3.10.2017 on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on contract basis.
The initial engagement of the petitioner vide letter dated 3.10.2017 was for a period of eleven months which was subsequently extended by letter dated 6.9.2018 for the period from 6.9.2018 to 5.9.2019 and again by letter dated 30.8.2019 for the period from 5.9.2019 to 4.9.2020.
By an order dated 5.9.2020, the IGIMS was pleased to extend the engagement of the petitioner for the period till a new appointment is made or till the respondents come out with an advertisement for contract employment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical).
The respondent-IGIMS came out with Advertisement no.2 dated 6.12.2024 under the signature of the Director, IGIMS inviting applications for appointment on the posts on deputation at IGIMS, Patna.
It is submitted by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the appointment on deputation is also a temporary transfer of an employee from one department to the other. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Piara Singh & Ors.; (1992) 4 SCC 118, has held that the ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee. As such the Advertisement no.2 dated 6.12.2024 for appointment on various posts including Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on deputation be quashed and the respondent-IGIMS be directed to continue the petitioner on the said post till regular appointment is made.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the IGIMS has come out with memo dated 28.1.2025 (Annexure-P/8) which is a list of provisionally eligible and not eligible applicants for different posts. For the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Firoz Alam is the only eligible candidate. Further the IGIMS came out with a selection list dated 24.2.2025 showing the selection of different candidates including Firoz Alam (respondent no.6) as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The Deputy Director (Administration) of the IGIMS wrote a letter dated 28.2.2025 to the respondent no.6 informing him about his appointment on deputation on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) at the institute. The petitioner by different applications has challenged the select list dated 28.1.2025, the select list dated 24.2.2025 and the communication/letter dated 28.2.2025 written by the IGIMS to respondent no.6.
It is submitted by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that an office order dated 12.3.2025 was issued finally relieving the petitioner from the forenoon of 12.3.2025 and the petitioner was instructed to handover all the files, measurement books and other official documents to the Executive Engineer (Electrical) and also submit no dues certificate from all concerned departments for final processing.
The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the IGIMS. It is submitted that the petitioner was selected as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on contract basis on 3.10.2017 for a period of eleven months on consolidated salary of Rs.35,000/- per month. The service of the petitioner was extended by different orders from time to time and finally by order contained in memo no.3747 dated 5.9.2020, the same was extended till new appointment or advertisement is made for Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Learned counsel submitted that IGIMS follows the Rules prescribed for employees of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (‘AIIMS, New Delhi’ in short). The appointment of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) is 100 percent by promotion on a person having obtained the requisite eight years experience in the feeder cadre.
Learned counsel for the IGIMS further submitted that pursuant to the advertisement published and the interview having been conducted, the respondent no.6 was selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). However, subsequently by order dated 26.11.2025, the respondent no.6 was relieved to enable him to join his parent department.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, there is no dispute with respect to the fact that on the respondent-IGIMS coming out with an advertisement for appointment as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on contract basis, the petitioner having appeared in the written examination was appointed and an order of engagement dated 3.10.2017 was passed in his favour.
The initial appointment was for a period of eleven months on contract basis which was extended from time to time till by an order dated 5.9.2020 issued by the IGIMS, the appointment was till a new appointment is made or an advertisement is taken out for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on contract employment.
It is not in dispute that no regular appointment has been made by the respondents on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical).
So far as the respondent-IGIMS coming out with Advertisement no.2 (Annexure-P/7) dated 6.12.2024 is concerned, a perusal of the same would show that the same relates to appointment on deputation.
At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the contents of letter no.172 dated 10.10.1991, written by the Additional Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar to the Director, IGIMS that in case of appointment, promotion, salary and other service conditions of the officers and staff of the IGIMS, the Rules applicable in the AIIMS, New Delhi should be enforced.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the IGIMS that it was as a result of the enforcement of the Rules prevalent in AIIMS, New Delhi that the steps were taken by the IGIMS for appointment on different posts including Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on deputation.
It may be observed here that the relevant portion of the recruitment Rules as prevalent in AIIMS, New Delhi has been brought on record as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the IGIMS. A perusal of the same shows that for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), the method of appointment is of 100 percent by promotion. Clause-11 of the document clearly mentions that so far as deputation is concerned, the same is not applicable in the said case.
In view of the above facts, the contention on behalf of the IGIMS that steps were being taken in accordance with the Rules for appointment of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on deputation, till regular appointment were made, has no legs to stand and is not sustainable, there being no such provision in the concerned Rules of AIIMS, New Delhi.
At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment in the case of Piara Singh (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :-
“46.Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.”
So far as the instant case is concerned, the petitioner who was working on contract basis and whose services had been extended till appointment on regular basis was made by the IGIMS cannot be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee as a person on deputation would be and especially in view of the facts that the Rules of the AIIMS, New Delhi applicable in case of IGIMS do not provide for such employment.
In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, the Court finds merit in the contentions of learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that he should not be disturbed till regular appointment is made.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner whose service on contract basis as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) was extended by order contained in memo no.3747 dated 5.9.2020 under the signature of the Administrative Officer, IGIMS, Patna shall not be disturbed till regular appointments are made on the said post in accordance with the applicable Rules.
The office order contained in memo no.945 dated 12.3.2025 issued under the signature of the Deputy Director (Administration), IGIMS, Patna relieving the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be continued in service on contract basis till regular appointment is made on the said post.
Re: CWJC no.756 of 2025.
The facts stated in detailed herein above are not being repeated all over again.
It is the case of the petitioner that having worked on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on contract basis from the date of his engagement on 3.10.2017 without any break and even the engagement having been done following the publication of a proper advertisement and a full-fledged selection process, the petitioner filed representation praying for regularisation of his services.
No action having been taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed CWJC no.20142 of 2021 praying for a direction to the respondents to regularise his service from the date he was appointed on contract basis.
By order dated 21.3.2024, the writ application was dismissed as not pressed, however with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities for redressal of his grievances.
The petitioner filed an application before the respondent-IGIMS for regularisation of his services, however the same was rejected and the order communicated to the petitioner by letter no.4518 dated 4.11.2024.
It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the instant writ application praying for setting aside the order dated 4.11.2024 with a direction to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical).
Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis after a proper advertisement which took into consideration all aspects including that of reservation, age relaxation etc. The petitioner having worked without any break or interim order of any Court right from the date of his engagement on 3.10.2017 till the present date, in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, direction be given to the respondent-IGIMS to regularise his services.
Bereft of unnecessary details, it may be observed here that as noted while considering the case of the petitioner in CWJC no.632 of 2025, so far as the service conditions in IGIMS are concerned, the Rules prevalent in AIIMS, New Delhi are to be followed. The Rules with respect to appointment of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) [Annexure-E to CWJC no.632 of 2025] clearly provides that recruitment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) is to be done 100 percent by promotion. There is no other mode of recruitment i.e. by direct recruitment or appointment by deputation or absorption.
Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 21.3.2024 passed in CWJC no.20142 of 2021, the respondents considered the representation of the petitioner for his regularisation of service and rejected the same by letter dated 4.11.2024 (Annexure-P/17).
A perusal of the said letter bearing no.4518 dated 4.11.2024 written by the Deputy Director (Administration), IGIMS, Patna to the petitioner would show that the appointment of the petitioner on contract basis was extended till a new appointment is made or till an advertisement is published for contract employment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). So far as regularisation of service of a person appointed on contract basis on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) is concerned, there is no such provision. The post has to be filled by advertisement and selection. For this reason, the service of no person can be regularised on the said post.
In the opinion of the Court, the relevant Rules of the AIIMS, New Delhi applicable in the case of IGIMS clearly provides that 100 percent of the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) are to be filled by way of promotion from the feeder cadre of Junior Engineer (Electrical) with eight years of regular service in the grade.
It would be relevant to refer to the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors. (3); (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :-
“43.… … … Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. ……… The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme.”
It was further held in the case of Umadevi (3) (supra) :-
“52.… … … This Court held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. ………”
In the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors.; (2010) 9 SCC 247, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :-
“5.… … … In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and the courts cannot direct their absorption, regularisation or re-engagement nor make their service permanent… .
6.This Court in Umadevi (3) further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ... ... …”
The Courts have regularly observed that regularisation is not a mode of recruitment. Continued contractual employment does not create a right to permanent absorption and the Courts should not prevent the State from undertaking regular recruitment merely to protect temporary employees.
So far as the facts of the instant case are concerned, the relevant Rules of AIIMS, New Delhi applicable in the present case of IGIMS stipulate 100 percent recruitment by promotion from the feeder cadre of Junior Engineer with persons having eight years of experience. From the affidavits on record, it transpires that earlier no eligible candidates were available, however the last supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of IGIMS on 28.4.2026 clearly mentions that four Junior Engineers now fulfill the requisite period to be promoted on two sanctioned posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). It further states that DPC meeting is soon going to be held to consider the promotion of Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on the basis of merit cum seniority.
Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, the relevant Rules applicable as also the contents of the last affidavit on behalf of the IGIMS, the Court finds no merit in the instant application of the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to regularise his service on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical).
The application is dismissed.
Both the writ applications stand disposed of.