CWP No.14774 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.14774 of 2008 Date of decision: August 22, 2008 Shubh Lakhan Sharma -----Petitioner Vs. Panjab University and another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Randhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks a direction to continue the petitioner in service till regular appointments are made. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on contract basis for 89 days on 11.12.2007. He was apprehending that on termination of the contract, his services may be terminated on 3.9.2008. It has been submitted that termination of services of the petitioner on expiry of 89 days will be illegal. 3. We find from the letter of appointment Annexure P.2 that appointment of the petitioner was purely on contract basis for 1 CWP No.14774 of 2008 a period of 89 days. On expiry of the said period, the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue in service. 4. It is well settled that no right accrues to a person to continue in service merely on appointment on contractual basis for 89 days. Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein it was, inter-alia, observed:- “45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain – not at arm's length – since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some 2 CWP No.14774 of 2008 succour to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not (sic) one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution”. 5. Following the above judgment, an identical writ petition has been dismissed on 12.8.2008 being CWP No.14175 of 2007 (Nahar Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to order passed in another writ petition being CWP No.8820 of 2006, decided on 5.2.2008, wherein stay of termination of services has been granted till regular appointment. Though, normally, once a 3 CWP No.14774 of 2008 writ petition has been admitted on an identical issue, the said order is followed in other cases, when the matter is covered by direct judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has not been referred to in the order admitting the writ petition and granting stay, it will not be proper to ignore the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We are not aware whether the judgment of the Hon’ 6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 22, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 4