LPA No. 78 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 78 of 2007 Date of Decision: 10.09.2008 Rakesh Kumar ..Appellant versus C.C.S. HAU and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present: Mr. J.K.Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3 **** T.S.Thakur, C.J.(Oral) This appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 14665 of 2005 filed by the petitioner-appellant for regularization of his services as a Research Associate, has been dismissed. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that the appointment of the petitioner-appellant as Research Associate in connection with the project under Haryana Agriculture University was a pure and simple contractual arrangement which came to an end on 30.9.2005. The Court also noted the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others V. Umadevi and others, JT 2006(4) SC 420, and found the petitioner- appellant entitled to no relief resulting in the dismissal of the petition. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Sibal, fairly conceded that in so far as the claim for regularization of the services of the appellant was concerned, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the appointment in question being contractual in nature, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief of LPA No. 78 of 2007 [2] regularization. Mr. Sibal, all the same, argued on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra and others V. State of Rajasthan and others, 1999(2) Supreme Court Cases, 317, that in the matter of any future employment for similar project work, the University, could be directed to give preference to the petitioner if he was otherwise eligible for the same and also grant relaxation of the age bar, if any, prescribed for such employment. The decision in Rajendra and others, case (Supra), no doubt makes a direction while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners in that case to the effect that in the event of any additional posts being created in future due to some new schemes/programmes being introduced, the petitioners may be given preference according to their seniority, subject to eligibility after giving relaxation of age in view of the service rendered by each one of them in the DRDAs. That observation, may not, however, justify a similar direction in the instant case having regard to the fact that learned Single Judge has recorded a clear finding that employment of the petitioner-appellant was purely contractual in nature and was to be coterminous with the life of project work in connection with which he was engaged. That view was, in our opinion, perfectly justified and legally unexceptionable for the employment in question being purely contractual in nature and limited to the period for which the project in question was under implementation, could not entitle the petitioner to either continue in service or regularization in the absence of any substantive vacancy available for such regularization. Having said so, we are of the view that the petitioner-appellant would be entitled to be considered for any future employment in connection with any future project which the university may envisage or formulate, based on his merit and suitability as also the experience that he may have acquired in connection with similar other work done by him in connection with other projects. Even that would be permissible only by considering the petitioner’s claim together with the claims of all other eligible candidates for any such employment. In so far as relaxation of age is concerned, there is nothing before us to suggest that any future project would have any age bar for employment of Research Associate. All that we need say in that regard is that in case there is any age bar LPA No. 78 of 2007 [3] prescribed for employment of Research Associate, the competent authority shall be free to consider the relaxation of such age bar in appropriate cases including in the case of the petitioner herein. With these observation, this appeal is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) 10.09.2008 JUDGE 'ravinder'