No contract employee has any vested right to continue or to have his or her contract renewed

From the aforesaid observations which have been made by the Apex Court on the status of honorary employment in the service, it appears to this Court that it is not open for the petitioner to claim any relief, as tried to be sought in the present proceedings. Since throughout has accepted the status as honorary Medical Officer purely on contractual basis with open eyes and continued to discharge without any demur and throughout even during the extended period of his contract, the basic terms and conditions have remained unchanged. That being the position, it appears to this Court that hardly any case is made out by the petitioner to call for any interference to grant any relief as prayed for.[Para No.14]

    Additionally, it is a settled position of law that the contractual employment has no any vested right to continue

nor normally it is open for the Court to give any mandate to an employer to continue the contract or to change the status of the contractual employment in any manner. Once the same having been accepted by consent of both the sides without any demur and as such, the relevant observations contained in the following decisions of the Apex Court with regard to the status of even contractual employment, the Court would like to incorporate hereunder some of the relevant observations mentioned in the following decisions:

(1) In the case of Yogesh Mahajan Vs. Professor R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 218, Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed in para 6,7 and 8 as under:

6. It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. That being so, we are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was unable to show any statutory or other right to have his contract extended beyond 30th June, 2010. At best, the petitioner could claim that the concerned authorities should consider extending his contract. We find that in fact due consideration was given to this and in spite of a favourable recommendation having been made, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences did not find it appropriate or necessary to continue with his services on a contractual basis. We do not find any arbitrariness in the view taken by the concerned authorities and therefore reject this contention of the petitioner.

7. We are also in agreement with the view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the decision of this Court in Uma Devi. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appointment of the petitioner on a contractual basis or on an ad hoc basis was made in accordance with any regular procedure or by following the necessary rules. That being so, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner for regularisation of his services. The decision in Uma Devi does not advance the case of the petitioner.

8. Insofar as the final submission of the petitioner to the effect that some persons were appointed as Technical Assistant (ENT) in May 2016 is concerned, we are of the view that the events of 2016 cannot relate back to the events of 2010 when a decision was taken by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences not to extend the contract of the petitioner. The situation appears to have changed over the last six years and the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the changed situation. There is no material on record to indicate what caused the change in circumstances, and merely because there was a change in circumstances, does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to any benefit. On the other hand, it might have been more appropriate for the petitioner to have participated in the walk in interview so that he could also be considered for appointment as Technical Assistant (ENT), but he chose not to do so.

Employee on continuous and long-period part-time service has not right to be regularised

In paragraph 8 of State of Tamil Nadu v. Singamuthu [(2017) 4 SCC 113], the Honourable Supreme Court laid down as follows:

"8 Part-time of casual employment is meant to serve the exigencies of administration. It is a settled principle of law that continuance in service for long period on part-time or temporary basis confers no right to seek regularisation in service. The person who is engaged on temporary or casual basis is well aware of the nature of his employment and he consciously accepted the same at the time of seeking employment. Generally, while directing that temporary or part-time appointments be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the long period of service rendered by the employees. However, this may not be always a correct approach to adopt especially when the scheme of regularisation is missing from the rule book and regularisation casts huge financial implications on public exchequer." (emphasis given) "[Para No.21]

    Going by the ratio decidendi in the above-cited precedents, the law is well settled that merely because a person claims to be in continuous service for a long period, on part-time basis, it does not confer on him any right to seek regularisation of service. The courts should not be swayed by a long period, especially when the scheme of regularisation is absent. Further, there can be no rule of the thumb particularly without the existence of a vacancy.[Para No.22]