Contractual engagement without sanctioned posts or regular recruitment does not confer a right to regularisation.

The ten applicants were engaged on a contractual basis as Web Ticketing Assistant-cum-System Operators under the Lakshadweep Directorate of Port, Shipping & Aviation from 2010.

The 2009 notification specified an initial one-year engagement, extendable in succeeding years, on consolidated remuneration; the appointment order stated that the engagement did not confer a claim to regular appointment.

Their contracts were extended over time, but the respondents decided not to extend them beyond 1 September 2021.

The applicants’ O.A. was dismissed.

Whether the applicants, having served for years under successive contractual engagements, had a right to renewal or continuation of their contracts

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular appointment or absorption on the basis of their long service and the asserted existence of posts

The Tribunal considered the principles in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and Jaggoo v. Union of India in relation to regularisation, and held that the applicants did not satisfy the applicable criteria because their appointments were expressly contractual and were not to regular posts.

It also relied on Yogesh Mahajan v. Prof. R.C. Deka for the principle that a contract employee has no right to have a contract renewed, and on Official Liquidator v. Dayanand for the proposition that legitimate expectation, by itself, does not create an enforceable right.

The Tribunal further noted University of Delhi v. Delhi University Contract Employees Union, which held that contract employees could not claim regularisation but should have an opportunity to compete in the ensuing selection.

The judgment refers to no specific statutory provision as the basis of its decision.

The Tribunal treated the terms of the original notification and appointment as decisive: the posts were advertised for contractual engagement, with consolidated pay, no identified Recruitment Rules or regular pay scale, and an express disclaimer of any claim to regular appointment.

It found that the applicants’ repeated extensions did not alter the contractual character of their engagement, and that the record disclosed no assurance of regularisation.

The applicants’ reliance on other contract workers who had reportedly been regularised did not establish a right, absent evidence that the circumstances and conditions of those cases were comparable.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicants were not being replaced by another set of contractual employees and accepted the respondents’ position that the work had shifted to online ticketing.

The O.A. and all pending miscellaneous applications were dismissed, with no order as to costs.