The Supreme Court has held that where an institution issues an advertisement for regular vacancies, subject candidates to a regular selection process, and finds a candidate suitable in that process, it cannot arbitrarily appoint that candidate on a contractual basis while granting regular appointments to similarly situated selected candidates, unless the record discloses a reason for such differential treatment. In the absence of any disclosed reason, denial of regular appointment is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Court also clarified that the case is not one of regularisation of a contractual appointee in the abstract; rather, it concerns the legality of imposing a contractual appointment against a selection process expressly undertaken for regular appointment. Acceptance of such contractual appointment does not cure or legitimise the underlying illegality where the record does not justify the departure from the regular appointment process.
A Two-Judge Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti identified the real controversy as not whether a contractual appointee could be regularised, but whether a candidate subjected to a selection process for a regular vacancy pursuant to an advertisement for regular posts could arbitrarily be given only a contractual appointment. The Bench treated as admitted that the advertisement made no mention of contractual appointment, that the appellant was suitable and shortlisted for the regular post, that he underwent the same interview process as other candidates, and that despite this he alone, along with one other candidate, was recommended for a one-year contractual appointment at fixed pay while the others were recommended for regular appointment, with no reason recorded for that differential treatment.
The Bench observed that once the process initiated was for regular appointment, unequal treatment among similarly situated candidates required disclosure of reasons on record. It held that if the appellant was unsuitable, he could not have been recommended even for contractual appointment, and if he was found suitable in the same process, denial of regular appointment without recorded reasons was unjustified. The Bench expressly noted that the issue was not an appellate re-evaluation of the Selection Committee’s views, but whether denial of regular appointment in such circumstances was legally justified. On examining the record, the Bench found no just and real reason for denying the appellant a regular appointment and held such denial to be patently illegal and unconstitutional.
Accordingly, the Bench set aside the impugned judgments and orders, and held that the appellant was entitled to regular appointment as Assistant Professor. However, it moulded the relief by denying financial benefits and granting only continuity of service. It also directed the institute to issue the appointment order within four weeks and to place the appellant in seniority as the last candidate among those recommended and appointed by the Selection Committee resolution dated April 06, 2013.
Briefly, the appeal arose from Advertisement No. FS-01/2013 issued in January 2013 by IIIT Allahabad for regular appointments to the posts of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. The appellant applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the Information Security stream and possessed the requisite qualifications, including a Ph.D., a first-class preceding degree, and the required teaching/research experience. He was called for interview and participated in the same selection process as other candidates considered for regular appointment.
In 2013, the appellant was issued an appointment letter as Assistant Professor on a contract basis for 12 months, which he accepted and pursuant to which he worked at the institute. Subsequently, in 2014, the institute cancelled all appointments made pursuant to the recommendation of the Selection Committee. That cancellation was challenged by the affected appointees before the Allahabad High Court, which on Dec 11, 2015 directed reconsideration after affording an opportunity to the candidates, and the matter eventually came back before the institute pursuant to further proceedings culminating in this appeal.
Upon reconsideration, the institute reiterated the earlier position and again offered the appellant only a contractual appointment, requiring him to join to complete his contract period. The appellant challenged that decision on the basis that the advertisement was only for regular appointments, that the Recruitment and Service Rules separately contemplated regular and contractual appointments, and that among the candidates selected on April 06, 2013, all others were appointed regularly while he and one other person alone were put on contract without justification, which he alleged was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16.
The institute’s defence was that the Selection Committee had discretion to recommend regular or contractual appointments depending on merit and available posts, that the appellant had voluntarily accepted the contractual appointment and worked under it without protest, and that he therefore could not later question its nature. The Single Judge accepted this position and dismissed the petition, observing that the competent authority had reconsidered the matter and that a contractual appointee had no right to claim regular appointment. The Division Bench also dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant’s acceptance of the contractual appointment and holding that acquiescence disentitled him from challenging it later.
Appearances:
Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sr. Adv., Aviral Saxena, AOR, Abhinav Sharma, Adv., Paritosh Goyal, Adv, for Appellant
Sanyat Lodha, AOR, for Respondent
