Salique.T. & Ors. vs The Administrator & Ors.

HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Briefly speaking the factual matrix is as under – The applicants were working as Web Ticketing Assistant-cum-System Operators under the Directorate of Port, Shipping & Aviation of the U.T of Lakshadweep on a contract basis for the last 11 years. They were aggrieved by the order of the respondents refusing to extend the period of their contract and to consider them for regular appointment.

It is submitted that in the wake of a need to introduce advance shipping and checking of X-ray baggage scanning of passengers at various islands and mainland, the Directorate of Port, Shipping & Aviation, Kavaratti had obtained approval for creation of 14 posts of Web Ticketing Assistant-cum-System Operator and 7 posts of X-ray Baggage Inspector-System Operator. In order to fill up these posts a notification was issued in the Lakshadweep Times under F.No.14/23/2008-Port(M) dated 10.12.2009 inviting applications for contract appointment to the post of Web Ticketing Assistant-cum-System Operator and X-ray Baggage Inspector-cum-System Operator. This is produced as Annexure A-1 wherein it is stated that the number of posts of Web Ticketing Assistant-cum-System Operator notified was 14 and the educational qualification prescribed for the post was Bachelor's Degree in any discipline with PGDCA/DCA/BCA issued by a recognized University/Institution. The initial payment was a consolidated sum of Rs.10000/- per month on condition that each selected candidate shall remit an amount of Rs.20000/- as Security Deposit to the Department/Government accounts before joining. The 10 individuals who had the qualification responded to the notification and their names are listed below -

The selection was based on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination and the applicants selected and empanelled were issued with an order of appointment dated 13.07.2010 by the 3^rd respondents. This is produced as Annexure A-2 wherein the applicants 1 to 7 were at Sl.Nos.12, 8, 6, 7, 10, 3 and 9 respectively. These 7 applicants having fulfilled the conditions prescribed were also given the orders of posting dated 23.07.2010 issued by the 3^rd respondent. This is produced as Annexure A-3. In terms of Annexure A-3 the 1^st and 7^th applicants were posted at different Ports situated at the island. Subsequently 8^th, 9^th and 10^th applicants were also given similar orders of posting as per order dated 31.08.2010 issued by the 3^rd respondent. This is produced as Annexure A-4.

It is submitted that the applicants' period of contract was also being extended from time to time mechanically since their presence and requirement in the functioning of the office was very much essential. They submit that Web Ticketing Assistant-cum-System Operators were being utilized in the Department as their presence and requirement was very much essential for manning the ticket counter and for other operations. They were directed to work even on all holidays including on national holidays. Additionally, their services were also being utilized as Port Assistants. It is submitted that there are as many as 45 vacancies of technical posts in the Directorate of Port, Shipping and Aviation and as many as 40 crafts are in operation. Further, in course of time since requirement of the applicants was continuous and inevitable in nature, it was also given to believe that their services would be regularized against permanent posts. They have cited such case of contract workers particularly that of Junior Signalman etc., being granted regular scale of pay and also regularization subject to condition that they had 5 years of service.

While so the applicants were informed that their contract period beyond 01.09.2021 has not been approved to be extended by the competent authority. They had also come across a communication dated 05.10.2021 indicating the above facts. This is produced as Annexure A-5. They claimed that on personal inquiry they were informed that the extension of their contract period was under consideration. They, therefore, submitted individual and joint representations to the 3^rd respondent, copies of which are produced as Annexure A-6 series and Annexure A-7. It is submitted that they were also recommended by the Port Assistant of Kiltan as per letter dated Nil as also by Deputy Director vide letter dated 31.08.2021, copies of which are produced as Annexure A-8 and Annexure A-9. It is pointed out that similar recommendations were submitted by the Assistant Engineer of the Port Department stressing the necessity of their continued utilization for normal functioning of the Directorate of Port, Shipping and Aviation.

Notwithstanding these communications, the applicants are not being considered for re-engagement on contract basis or on regular basis against regular posts against which they have been working for the last 11 years without break. They pointed out that all the applicants are 38 plus years of age except the 5^th applicant, consisting of two lady employees as well and are supporting their families. The sudden deprivation of their livelihood without any valid reason despite the existence of sanctioned posts caused distress and submits that it is totally arbitrary and discriminatory. They have drawn our attention the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2021 SC 4158 in the case of Somesh Thapliyal & Anr. vs. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B Garhwal University & Anr. and AIR 2013 SC 3547 in the case of Nihal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

On the basis of the above, the applicants submit that they are entitled to be continued on contract basis and to be regularized in so far as the work against which they were utilized was against the sanctioned posts and that their recruitment were after following the regular recruitment process and consistent with Articles 14 and 16.

As grounds they submit that the posts against which they were utilized for the last 11 years still exist and refusal to extend the contract period is arbitrary and discriminatory. They are therefore entitled to continue against the same post and to be absorbed in those posts as they were recruited after a definite and regular process of selection fulfilling the requisite educational qualifications for the posts. The applicants claim that they are entitled to be treated to have been substantively appointed from the date of their initial appointment and with all consequential benefits as if they were continued in service.

The applicants have vehemently aruged the case during the course of hearing. Furthermore, it is submitted that the respondents have issued Annexure A-10 Circular indicating the percentage of quota seats which will be released physically and the manner of issue of seats they have issued Annexure A-11 notification indicating the manner in which the tickets will be booked. Further, this will also include tickets on each occasion regarding passengers approaching the counter for obtaining offline tickets from the mainland counters. Further they have cited the decisions in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Jaggoo vs. Union of India & Ors., (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Bhola Nath vs. State of Jharkhand, (2026) KHC OnLine 2078 in support of their claim.

The respondents have primarily argued that these are not sanctioned regular posts and that the MHA is the only competent authority for sanctioning posts for the Administration. The Administrator has only power to notify contractual post for the purpose meeting work exigencies. They have submitted that there are no Recruitment Rules and there is no pay scale involved. A flat amount is paid and therefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions will not apply. They have further submitted that it is not a continuous engagement but a contractual employment which has been renewed year by year and they have not been disengaged during the currency of the contract but there was actually a decision not to renew the contract with the end of the contratual period. They have also submitted that the work is no longer being done by the Port Assistant or by contractual workers but is now done 100% online through IRCTC website. Hence there is actually no requirement for the posts which have been manned by the applicants thus far. They have further submitted that Annexure A-2 has made absolutely clear that there would be no claim for absorption and the Annexure A-5 is only a non renewal of contract. Even Annexure A-2, which it seems is a primary document for appointment, it should be noted that therein the candidates are informed that the engagement now made was purely on contract basis as per the terms and conditions signed by the contract agreement and this would not confer any claim for regular appointment. The payment of the applicants are from the Major Head 'Other Charges' (Non Plan) and not from the head of 'Salaries'. Therefore they do not met the basic criteria of Umadevi (supra) either where it is required that the appointment be made on a regular basis.

They have further cited the decisions in 2018 KHC 6057 in the case of Yogesh Mahajan vs. Prof.R.C.Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences wherein on the question of whether an employee appointed on contract basis has right to continue, it was held that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time, 2008 KHC 6959 in the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & Ors., wherein the Apex Court gone into the concept of 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' and 'due process of law' and held that mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, 2021 KHC 6190 in the case of University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union & Ors., wherein on appointment for post of Junior Assistants on contract basis it was held that though benefit of regularization cannot be granted but opportunity must be given to them to appear in ensuing selection.

On going through Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-5 orders as also Annexure A-1 notification it is clear that starting from the stage of notification itself it has been made very clear that the appointment is on contratual basis and there would be no conferment of right for regularization at any point of time. The notification dated 10.12.2009 calls for applications from qualified local candidates for appointment to the posts of Web Tracking Assistant cum System Operator and X-ray Baggage Inspector cum System Operator on contract basis for stgrengthening of Department of Port, Shipping and Aviation in advanced ship ticketing and X-ray Barrage Scanning of Passengers at various units and mainland and the appointment would be initially for one year and can be extended for the succeeding years. They have indicated the total number of post notified for recruitment and a consolidated salary per month. There is no indication of any Recruitment Rules or a pay scale which would form part of a regular appointment. Furthermore, it is also indicated that they would work for 89 days with one day break to be effected in the attendance register of contract appointment without fail which means there was a conscious effort to ensure that there was no continuous engagement that would enable the conferment of right for regular appointment. It is not the case either that these contractual employees are being replaced by another set of contractual employees.

This being the case, the fundamental criteria for Umadevi (supra) or Jaggoo (supra) are not met. Hence, it is found that the candidates are not eligible for regularization or for regular employment or for absorption. There has been no indication at any point of time by the Administration to the applicants that they are regular employees to provide them any hope that they would be regularized at any point in time that is available on record. The presumption that because some contract employees were regularized, that they would also be entitled for regularization without looking into the conditions of the regularization of those employees does not confer upon the applicants the right of legitimate expectation.

In the light of the above, the O.A fails and is accordingly dismissed. In view of the above observations, all pending M.As are also dismissed. No order as to costs.