The Gauhati High Court has clarified that employees engaged on a contractual basis for a specific, time-bound project do not acquire a vested right to continue in service, be regularized, or be absorbed into permanent posts upon the project’s completion or closure. The Court explained that the services of such employees are co-terminus with the project itself, and when the project for which they were hired is discontinued, their contractual engagement naturally comes to an end.
The Court held that directions for regularization cannot be issued in the absence of existing vacancies or for a non-existent establishment, as it would amount to creating posts and continuing employment despite the non-availability of work. The termination of services, when carried out in accordance with the terms of the contract (such as providing one month’s notice), does not suffer from illegality, arbitrariness, or constitutional violations, especially when it is a result of a policy decision to wind up the project.
The Court pointed out that the impugned orders discontinuing the petitioners’ services were found to be without any infirmity and concluded that since the petitioners were engaged for a particular NRC updation project that has been discontinued, they cannot claim any right to absorption, regularization, or continuation of service, and no mandamus could be issued to that effect.
However, the Court directed that the petitioners may be considered for re-engagement if their services are required upon the commencement of the process of issuing rejection slips.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kardak Ete observed that that the petitioners’ engagement was purely contractual, for a specific project, and governed by the NRCP Service Regulations, 2014, and individual agreements. These agreements explicitly stated that the engagement was temporary and did not confer any right to future appointment or benefits under the State or Central Government.
The Bench found that a key term of the contract, under Clause 10, allowed either party to terminate the agreement with one month’s written notice, a condition that was duly fulfilled by the respondents, and noted the respondents’ submission that the NRC updation work, for which the petitioners were hired, was completed by 31 March 2023, and there was no active work requiring their manpower.
While acknowledging the petitioners’ argument that Rule 11 of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, mandates continuous maintenance of the NRC, the Bench accepted the Central Government’s stance that no decision has been taken to undertake such a continuous updating exercise at present. Lastly, the Bench also considered that the termination was a uniform policy decision applied to all similarly situated contractual staff due to the project’s winding up and was done in consultation with the Central Government.
Briefly, the petitioners were engaged on a contractual basis as Circle Project Supervisors, Junior Assistants, and Helpers for the National Register of Citizens (NRC) Updation Project in Assam, following advertisements issued in 2014 and 2015. Their appointments and service conditions were governed by the National Register of Citizens Updation Project (NRCP) Service Regulations, 2014, and individual contracts were executed for an initial period of 11 months, with subsequent extensions.
The petitioners consistently received satisfactory performance appraisals (Grades ‘A’ or ‘B’) and their contracts were renewed accordingly. When the final NRC list was published on 31 August 2019, it has not been officially notified by the Registrar General of India, and subsequent processes like the issuance of rejection slips are on hold. Later, the respondent authorities issued notices of discontinuation/termination to the petitioners, citing the completion of project work and non-availability of funds, leading to the filing of present petitions seeking reinstatement and regularization/absorption.
Appearances:
Advocate M J Quadir, for the Petitioner
Government Advocate, for the Respondent/ State
