Summary
In 2010 Thane Zila Parishad engaged an ambulance driver at a primary health centre on a two-month contract, as a stopgap until a tender for outsourced drivers was finalised. His appointment order said it would end once a regular driver was posted. The tender took years, and he was re-engaged repeatedly until July 2021, when the contract went to an agency and his engagement ended. The Bombay High Court set aside the termination, which he had not challenged, and ordered his regularisation for long service. The Supreme Court reversed that order. Long continuance on a contractual stopgap basis, without any selection process, gives no right to regularisation, particularly where policy was to obtain drivers through contractors. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav and Sheo Narain Nagar were distinguished on their facts.
Issues
- Whether a driver engaged on contract as a stopgap pending outsourcing, without any selection process, is entitled to regularisation because of nine to ten years' continued engagement.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court erred in setting aside an unchallenged termination order and directing regularisation solely on length of contractual service. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.2)
Held
- The respondent was engaged locally on a temporary contract, without any selection process, only until the tender for outsourced drivers was completed, under terms that it would end on a regular appointment; such a stopgap engagement confers no right to regularisation. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 6.2)
- Merely continuing for a long period on contract does not justify regularisation, especially where a policy decision had been taken to obtain drivers through an agency and regular appointments were barred. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.2)
- The High Court could not set aside the termination order of 15.07.2021, issued on award of the contract to the agency, when it was never challenged; Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav (unfair labour practice) and Sheo Narain Nagar (temporary status conferred, posts available) are distinguishable. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.3)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 8856 of 2022 allowed; the Bombay High Court judgment dated 16.12.2021 in Writ Petition No. 4731 of 2021 setting aside the termination and directing regularisation set aside and the writ petition dismissed; no costs.