JUDGMENT
P.G. Agarwal, J.
1. As submitted by the learned counsel for both sides, both the writ petitions were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment as the question of law involved is identical.
2. We have detailed the facts of WP(C) 6779/2000. The broad facts of the other writ petition No. 4663/2000 are more or less similar.
3. Heard Mr. D.K. Misra, learned senior counsel and Mr. R. Sharma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri B.K. Sharma, learned Sr counsel and Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents Oil and Natural Gas Commission (for short, ONGC).
4. The petitioner Major Ranbir Sagar was a member of the Indian Army and he took voluntary retirement on successful completion of the term of engagement and at the time of retirement he held the rank of Major. Pursuant to an advertisement for the post of Deputy Manager (Security), in the ONGC, the petitioner participated in the selection process and he was selected for appointment to the post of Deputy Manager (Security). The order of appointment provided “the appointment is initially on tenure basis for a period of 3 years from the date of appointment”. The terms and condition of the appointment further provide :
“The appointee shall be initially appointed on tenure basis for a period bf 3 years in ONGC from the date of his appointment extendable by two years primarily for North East in the Corporation.”
The petitioner was placed on probation for a period of 1 year and thereafter, he was informed about the successful completion of his probation vide letter dated 27.12,96 (Annexure-E to the writ petition).
5. The tenure of the petitioner expired on 5.12.1998 and thereafter, he was given extension initially for a period of 1 year and thereafter, it was extended up to 15.12.2000 and on that date his service came to an end. The petitioner thereafter, approached this Court in the present writ petition for a direction to the respondent ONGC to regularise his service and/or regular appointment. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the letter dated 29.11.2000.
6. In view of the interim order passed by this Court on 13.12.2000, the petitioner is still continuing in his service.
7. The respondents have filed affidavit-in-opposition stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Manager (Security) on a contract basis for a fixed tenure and not on permanent basis and hence, on expiry of contract of service on 15.12.2000 the petitioner has no right to continue. It is further, stated that as per the policy decision, the ONGC appoints ex-defence personnel, ex-police personnel and personnel of para-military service on tenure post and such assignment is given for a specific period and for specific area or region or project and appointee cannot claim regularisation of service or extension beyond the period of contract.
8. Before proceeding any further, we would like to consider the question raised by Sri Mishra as regards the nature of appointment – whether it was a tenure appointment or it was a contractual appointment ? F.R. 9(30 A) defines tenure post as below :
“(30-A) Tenure post means a permanent post which an individual Government servant may not hold for more than a limited period.
NOTE. In case of doubt, the Central Government may decide whether a particular post is or is not a tenure post.
Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Terms and Condition of the appointment and Service) Regulation, 1975 also defines tenure post as below :
“Tenure post means a permanent post which an individual employee may not hold for more than a limited period.”
9. It is submitted that the post of Deputy Manager (Security) which the petitioner was holding was a temporary post and hence, it is submitted that it cannot be a tenure post. The respondent, on the other hand has submitted that it was a contractual service for a period of 3 years extendable by 2 years and accordingly, the petitioner served for the contract period of 3 years and also the extended period of 2 years and on completion of the said period, the petitioner must go as he was not appointed in any substantive or permanent post. As regards the contention of the respondents that it was a contractual appointment, the petitioner submits that in any contractual appointment, a subsequent agreement is a must and in the instant case, there was no such written agreement. It is also submitted that the petitioner was placed on probation for a period of 1 year and it shows the permanent nature of the appointment. We find no force in the above submission, as because all employees under ONGC are placed on probation and the terms and condition of the petitioner’s appointment also contain similar stipulation.
10. The respondents have placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CW 938 of 2003 wherein the similar question was raised by another Deputy Manager (Security) Sri R.K. Braham. The matter was disposed of with the following findings:
“In view of the nature of the appointment of the petitioner, which clearly indicates that it was a tenure posting for three years and that the appointment is purely provisional and the post is temporary, no direction, as sought for by the petitioner to declare him a permanent/regular employees can be issued by this Court. The petitioner with his open eyes accepted the nature of the appointment which was offered to him. The appointment was purely a tenure appointment and was also provisional in nature. Even the post is temporary and so, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be made permanent or be taken as permanent/regular employee of the Corporation. No order to make him permanent can be passed when the post itself is shown temporary.”
11. In the case of Director, IMD v. Puspa Srivastava, reported in AIR 1992 SC 2070, the Apex Court observed :
“To our mind, it is clear that where the appointment is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the respondent could have no right to continue in the post. Once this conclusion is arrived at, what requires to be examined is, in view of the services of the respondents being continued from time to time on ‘ad hoc’ basis for more than a year whether she is entitled to regularisation ? The answer should be in the negative.”
The above decision was reiterated in the case of CSIR and Ors. v. Ajay Kr. Jain (2000) 4 SCC 186.
12. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the order of appointment clearly shows that the appointment is on tenure basis for a period of 3 years in ONGC, extendable by 2 years. The terms and conditions were accepted by the appointee before he joined the service. Further, on perusal of the record, we find that this is not a case where the petitioner was not aware of his status or position in the ONGC prior to the completion of the 3 years period in 1998. The petitioner wrote a letter on 14.9.1998 to the Director, ONGC (Annexure-F to the writ petition). Para 8 and 9 of the said letter reads as follows :
“8. Further I would request you to consider and clarify the following please:
(a) Whether we shall be absorbed permanently after completion of tenure period.
(b) Whether we will remain in ERBC or shall be transferred to other region also.
(d) As dependants/spouses are permitted to visit the officer as quarterly LFA, shall be permitted in my case also.
9. From my side I can assure you Sir, that I am prepared to serve in the Corporation till normal age of superannuation. I am prepared to serve in ERBC for total period or any where the Corporation desires.”
After that, a reply was sent to the petitioner informing him the nature of the appointment.
13. The petitioner has further submitted that Major K.K. Chatterjee was appointed as Deputy Manager, Security for a period of 3 years and was subsequently, absorbed on permanent basis. The respondents have, however, stated that Major Chatterjee was appointed for a period 3 years in June, 1997 and he was never absorbed and he is no longer in the ONGC in any capacity.
14. The respondents have submitted that as per policy decision of the ONGC, they engage officers in the security discipline from retired army or police personnel on contract basis and the appointments are made on personal interview and not through regular selection process and the engagement is for a fixed period on contract basis and on the expiry of the period, the incumbent must go.
15. Upon perusal of the records and materials available, we have no hesitation to hold that the appointment of the petitioner was a tenure appointment for 3 years extendable by another 2 years and the petitioner was given the extension and on completion of the said period 5 years, he had no enforceable right to claim regularisation and absorption as regular service of ONGC. The term of appointment came to an end on 15.12.2000 in case of Major Ranbir Sagar and in respect of Lt. Col. Kameshwar Pd. Badani on 29.6.2001.
16. In view of the above, both the writ petitions stand dismissed and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. As the petitioners have continued in service at ONGC even after the expiry period of appointment. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, we leave the matter to the ONGC authorities to pass any order which they may deem fit and proper in respect of the above period.
17. The parties shall bear their own cost.