Contractual appointment based on performance assessment creates no vested right to regularisation upon unsatisfactory review.

The petitioner was appointed as Scientist-E (Natural Product Chemistry) at the Institute of Bioresources & Sustainable Development (IBSD) following an advertisement in 2011

His appointment letter dated 20.03.2013 and a subsequent contract agreement dated 03.04.2013 stipulated a five-year contractual tenure, subject to a review for regularization based on performance

Following a court direction in a previous writ petition [WP(C) No. 195 of 2018], an Assessment Committee was constituted on 15.05.2018 to evaluate the petitioner for regularization

The Committee, comprising nine members including two outside experts, rated the petitioner’s performance as "below average" and did not recommend regularization

Consequently, his services were terminated via order dated 06.07.2018

The petitioner challenged the termination and the rejection of his subsequent appeals, alleging his post was permanent and that the Assessment Committee was improperly constituted

Whether the appointment of the petitioner as Scientist–E was contractual in nature or a permanent employment

Whether the Assessment Committee was duly constituted as provided under Schedule IV of the Recruitment Rules

Whether any illegalities were committed by the authorities in terminating the service of the petitioner

The Court applied Rule 7.2 of the NII Group ‘I’-‘IV’ Recruitment Rules, 1996, and Bye-Law 8.1 of the IBSD, which mandate that direct recruits be placed on contract for an initial five-year period, with regularization contingent upon a satisfactory performance assessment at the end of four years

The court further relied on the principle of judicial restraint in academic and technical matters established in Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 372, which holds that courts should defer to the wisdom of expert committees and not sit as an appellate body over their evaluations

The Court found that both the Recruitment Rules and the express terms of the contract signed by the petitioner on 03.04.2013 clearly defined the role as contractual, refuting the petitioner's claim of permanent status

Regarding the composition of the Assessment Committee, the Court noted that while Schedule IV prescribes five members, enlarging it to nine to accommodate experts for five different scientists was "reasonable and rational"

The Court declined to adjudicate whether the outside experts (Dr. Amulya K. Panda and Dr. Shekhar C. Mande) were "subject experts" in Natural Product Chemistry, qualifying this as a disputed question of fact within the academic realm where the Court lacks expertise

It noted that the petitioner participated in the assessment without protest and failed to prove mala fides

Finally, the Court observed that the termination followed the procedure laid down in the contract and rules—specifically, an assessment resulting in a "below average" rating followed by a termination simpliciter with three months' advance salary

The Court held it cannot interfere with the technical findings of an expert committee unless perversity or mala fides are shown

The writ petition was dismissed, and all connected applications were closed