The Calcutta High Court held that a purely contractual employee cannot claim continuation or renewal of service as a matter of right after the expiry of the contractual period, and that authorities, including a Minister, cannot bypass statutory procedures to keep such employees in service in a secretariat without there being a sanctioned post or proper recruitment process. The bench, led by Justice Rai Chattopadhyay, was dealing with a writ petition filed by a former Group-C staff member under the Sarba Shiksha Mission who challenged the non-renewal of her annual contractual appointment and her subsequent removal from duties in the Education Minister’s secretariat. The petitioner had been initially appointed in 2007 through a written test and interview on a yearly contractual basis, with extensions granted until March 2010. Thereafter, following a show-cause notice alleging dereliction of duty, authorities decided not to renew her contract, and a communication was issued informing her that her service would not continue beyond the contractual period. The petitioner contended that the action was arbitrary and violative of natural justice, asserting that the non-renewal amounted to illegal termination and that she was not given a hearing or inquiry. She also submitted that after approaching the Minister in charge, she was permitted to work as a departmental assistant in the Minister’s secretariat, where she continued for nearly two years with salary, and therefore should be treated as continuing in service. The petitioner also relied on a government memorandum to claim entitlement to re-engagement, asserting that her continued presence in the secretariat should confer on her a legal right to ongoing engagement.
The Court, however, rejected these submissions and held that the petitioner’s appointment was purely contractual and contingent upon annual renewal at the discretion of the authorities. It clarified that the expiry of a fixed-term contract is not a “termination” in the legal sense but merely the natural end of the agreed tenure. In such circumstances, a contractual employee does not acquire any vested or indefeasible right to continue in service, and the non-renewal of a contract does not require a disciplinary inquiry or adherence to principles of natural justice unless the contract was terminated in a punitive or stigmatic manner. The communication issued by the authorities was found to be a simple intimation of non-renewal and not a punitive order requiring procedural safeguards.
The High Court took a particularly firm view of the petitioner’s subsequent engagement in the Minister’s secretariat, describing the development as contrary to law. The bench noted that there was no sanctioned post, no selection procedure, and that remuneration paid to the petitioner came from public or project funds meant for educational purposes. The Court observed that the Minister was not the appointing authority and had no power to make such an appointment. It held that allowing appointments or continued engagement in this manner, without statutory or procedural compliance, would undermine the rule of law and constitute improper exercise of official power. The bench emphasised that an engagement made outside the legal framework could not create any enforceable right or be treated as continuation of the earlier service merely because the individual was permitted to work in the secretariat.
Examining the legal principles applicable to contractual employment, the Court reiterated that contractual appointments are governed strictly by the terms of the contract, and once the contractual term expires, the contractual relationship naturally comes to an end without conferring on the employee a right to renewal or continuation unless the contract itself provides otherwise. The Court further noted that the absence of a sanctioned post and the lack of any selection process meant that the subsequent engagement in the secretariat was devoid of legal foundation. The bench underscored that public funds cannot be used to remunerate individuals in positions that have not been sanctioned or created by statute, and that bypassing established recruitment rules and procedures for the convenience of a Minister or authority amounts to lawlessness and misuse of public funds.
In dismissing the writ petition, the High Court held that there was no legal infirmity in the decision not to renew the petitioner’s contractual appointment, and that her later engagement in the Minister’s office was itself illegal. The Court’s order emphasised that contractual employment does not create a perpetual or indefeasible right to service, and that appointments or extensions must comply with statutory norms, including the existence of sanctioned posts and adherence to recruitment procedures. The Court further remarked that the State may, if it deems fit, initiate appropriate proceedings to examine the alleged misuse of public funds and fix responsibility for appointments made outside the legal framework.
The proceedings were identified as Tithi Adhikary v. State of West Bengal & Ors., and the bench’s ruling reinforces the principle that contractual employees have no inherent right to renewal or continuation of appointment once the contractual term ends, and that engagement in public offices outside sanctioned posts and established procedures is unlawful. This decision clarifies that contractual status alone does not confer a right to continued employment, and that authorities must respect the limits of their appointing powers and the requirements of statutory frameworks when engaging or renewing contractual staff.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.