‘No backdoor entry’: Bombay High Court rejects IIT law officer’s plea for permanency after 10 years of service
The Bombay High Court was hearing the plea filed by the executive officer (legal) who had worked with IIT Bombay for nearly a decade on a contractual basis.
The Bombay High Court refused to regularise an IIT Bombay legal officer after nearly a decade of contractual service. (AI-generated image) Bombay High Court IIT law officer news: The Bombay High Court recently refused to regularise an IIT Bombay legal officer after nearly a decade of contractual service, observing that granting permanency despite the lack of eligibility would amount to a “backdoor entry” into public employment.
Justices R I Chagla and Advait M Sethna were hearing the plea filed by Yuvraj Balasaheb Vharamble, who challenged a termination notice that ended his contract and sought regularisation in his post of executive officer (legal) at IIT Bombay, which he joined in 2016 on a contractual basis.
“Accepting such contention of the petitioner would tantamount to giving a back-door entry in the employment of the first Respondent (IIT Bombay), which is not what the law would require. Moreover, the post of executive officer (legal) is not a sanctioned post as it was created only to meet the administrative exigencies at the given time,” the May 8 order read.
Justices R I Chagla and Advait M Sethna Found that the employer duly clarified that the nature of the petitioner’s appointment was purely contractual for a temporary period.
‘Not a sanctioned post’
- The high court noted that the said post was a temporary post as clearly indicated in the advertisement issued by the IIT Bombay in 2015.
- The Bombay High Court clarified that the said post was not a sanctioned post and pointed out that the advertisement clarified that the appointment was contractual for three years.
- The court found that the employer duly clarified that the nature of the petitioner’s appointment was purely contractual for a temporary period of one year, terminable by giving one month’s notice from either side.
- The court mentioned that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace but are obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
- The court noted that the petitioner was re-appointed to the said post from time to time, but found that every office order issued in this regard clearly specified that all the other terms and conditions with regard to his appointment would remain unchanged.
- The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioner to continue his stay in the official residence/accommodation for a further period until June 8.
Worked at IIT Bombay for nearly a decade
It was placed on record that the petitioner completed the LLB (Bachelor of Laws) degree in 2000 and his master’s (Commercial and Criminal Laws) from Shivaji University in April 2002.
The petitioner submitted an application for the unreserved post of executive officer on July 17, 2015, through an advertisement that specified that the post is temporary and that the appointment would be on a contract for a period of three years.
Subsequently, the petitioner received an offer letter from IIT Bombay on February 8, 2016, offering the position of executive officer (Legal) in the administration office on a contract basis for a period of 3 years.
He joined the IIT Bombay on April 11, 2016, and on April 12, 2017, he received a communication allegedly enhancing his consolidated salary with a clarification that all other terms and conditions of his assignment would remain unchanged.
Later, in May 2019, the IIT Bombay issued another office order with regard to an increase in the consolidated salary of the petitioner, reiterating that all other terms and conditions would remain unchanged.
His engagement with IIT Bombay continued, and later on March 13, he got a communication from the office stating that his contractual tenure would end on April 23 and would not be extended further.
The petitioner in this present plea challenged the said March 13 communication and also sought regularisation either as executive officer (legal) or as deputy registrar (legal), along with salary arrears and service benefits.
No complaint against him
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Aseem Naphade argued that the said order is contrary to law as it abruptly terminates the appointment of his client without assigning any reasons in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner.
It was further submitted that merely by using words like temporary, contractual, and ad hoc, the employer cannot deprive the individual of his Constitutional right of employment, which is otherwise lawful.
He would urge that the petitioner was given continuous increments, his work was rewarded on record, and there were no complaints against him.
He urged that even if the petitioner does not comply with the age limit for such posts, this cannot be taken as a ground to defeat the petitioner’s substantive right after serving for almost a decade with the IIT Bombay.
Sanctioned post
Representing the IIT Bombay, Senior Advocate Naushad Engineer submitted that admittedly and undisputedly, the petitioner does not belong to the category of workman or employee.
Senior Advocate Engineer invited the court’s attention to certain provisions from the IIT statutes, which clearly distinguish between regular employment and contractual employment.
He submitted that this is clearly not regular employment and it is purely a contractual employment as would be clearly revealed from his terms and conditions of appointment, for which he would place reliance on the appointment letter, which was tendered across the bar.
He contended that the post of the executive officer (legal) to which the petitioner was initially appointed was not a sanctioned post, was temporary in nature and created only to meet administrative exigencies at the relevant time.
Share
