Madhya Pradesh High Court | In a matter related to non-renewal of contract of a contractual employee on account of unsatisfactory performance, a Single bench comprising of Sanjay Dwivedi,* J., held that “claiming regularization on the basis of past performance and long service is not proper because the order of appointment is very specific that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis and was coterminous with the project.”
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, vide order dated 11.03.2008, the petitioner was appointed as a Member of Project Facilitator Team (PFT) temporary and purely on contractual basis till June 2012 or up to the end of project, whichever was earlier. Vide order dated 13-06-2018 issued by the District Project Manager, the petitioner’s agreement of contract was not renewed owing to the petitioner’s performance not being found satisfactory for the period 2017-18. Aggrieved by the impugned order issued by the District Project Manager, the petitioner preferred a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned orders.
Contentions
The petitioner contended that the impugned order regarding not renewing the petitioner’s agreement of contract was issued by the incompetent authority. On the other hand, the respondents contended that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner to improve her work, therefore it cannot be contended that opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner.
Court’s Observation
The Court observed that the petitioner was appointed as a Member of Project Facilitator Team on certain terms and conditions i.e., the appointment was for a specific term and temporary in nature, purely on contract basis and later the petitioner’s contract was extended till 31-03-2018. The Court further observed that notice was issue to the petitioner showing irregularities and shortcomings in her service and performance of work and explanation was sought from the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the opportunity to satisfy the authority about regarding her dis-satisfactory performance was not provided to her.
The Court observed that the employee will not have any right to claim regularization, when the terms and conditions of the appointment clearly state that the appointment is purely on a temporary basis.
The Court relied on Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyam, (2016) 1 SCC 454, where it was held that “a decision of experts about suitability of a candidate generally cannot be examined under writ jurisdiction in absence of malafides, bias or arbitrariness” and observed that the Court cannot interference in respondent authorities decision to not extend the contract of appointment of the petitioner when petitioner’s performance was not found satisfactory and sufficient reasons were shown for the same.
In the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court held that present case neither a case where the opportunity of hearing was not granted before taking decision of not extending her contract, nor a case here there was any violation of principles of natural justice.
Court’s Verdict
On not finding anything wrong with the decision of the respondent authorities in not extending the contract appointment of the petitioner, the Court dismissed the present petition on being without any substance and devoid of merit.
[Saroj Gupta v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 1683, order dated 12-06-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Sanjay Dwivedi
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Jitendra Tiwari, Counsel for the Petitioner;
Me. Darshan Soni, Counsel for the State/Respondent No. 1;
Mr. Manan Agrawal, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, 3 and 5;
Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Counsel for the Respondent No. 4.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
