Contractual appointment ending by efflux of time requires no notice and confers no right to regularisation.

The Petitioner was engaged as a Librarian on a contractual basis by Respondent No. 2 Institute in 2010 for an initial period of three years

His contract was extended periodically for over 13 years

The final extension was granted on 02.05.2023 for a three-month period ending on 02.08.2023

Upon the expiry of this term, the Respondents did not grant further extensions, leading the Petitioner to cease service on 03.08.2023

The Petitioner challenged this non-extension before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), seeking continuation, regularization, and a restraint against replacement by another contractual hand

The CAT dismissed the application on 30.05.2025

The Petitioner subsequently moved the High Court, alleging that the cessation violated Clause 5 of his appointment letter, which required three months' notice for termination

1. Whether the cessation of the Petitioner’s engagement upon the expiry of the contractual term was illegal for non-compliance with the notice period in Clause 5?

2. Whether the Petitioner possesses an enforceable right to seek continuation or renewal of his contractual engagement?

3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to regularization in service based on 13 years of continuous engagement?

4. Whether the Tribunal’s judgment suffers from jurisdictional error or perversity?

The court applied the principle that a contractual appointment for a fixed term ends automatically by efflux of time

It relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), which held that regularization cannot be directed if the appointment was not made through a regular recruitment process as per Articles 14 and 16

The court further applied State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010), which clarified that the one-time exception for regularization only applied to employees who had completed 10 years of service as of the date of the Umadevi judgment (2006)

Additionally, it followed State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal (2011), establishing that long continuous service in temporary or part-time roles does not confer a right to regularization

The Court determined that Clause 5, regarding the three-month notice period, applies only to premature termination during the subsistence of a contract, not to cessation occurring upon the natural expiry of a fixed tenure

Regarding renewal, the Court held that a contractual employee has no vested right to extension unless provided by statute or contract, and the Petitioner had accepted these terms at the outset

The Court noted that Respondent No. 2 had taken a policy decision to digitize the library and reorganize staff, which falls within administrative discretion

On the claim for regularization, the Court found the Petitioner ineligible for the M.L. Kesari exception because his engagement commenced in 2010, four years after the Umadevi judgment

The court emphasized that mere long service does not bypass the requirement for recruitment via an open competitive process against sanctioned posts

The Court held that the Petitioner's service ended by efflux of time, rendering the notice clause inapplicable

It further held that there is no enforceable right to the renewal of a contract or regularization for appointments made outside the regular recruitment rules

The Court found no patent illegality or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision

All pending applications were closed