Expiry of contractual tenure based on efflux of time creates no vested right to renewal or continuation.

The Appellant was appointed as an Executive Assistant on a contractual basis by Respondent No. 4 (DERC) in 2014

His contract was renewed periodically, with the last formal engagement effective from 06.04.2021 to 05.04.2024

On 31.07.2023, nine months prior to the expiry of his term, an "Order of Extension" was issued by a Personnel Officer purportedly extending his tenure until 2027

However, on 05.04.2024, Respondent No. 4 issued an "Impugned Office Order" superseding the extension and relieving the Appellant from service

The Appellant challenged this before a Single Judge, who dismissed the Writ Petition on the grounds that the extension was unauthorized and premature

The Appellant then preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

1. Whether the unilateral withdrawal of a previously granted contractual extension without a hearing violates Article 14 of the Constitution or the principles of natural justice

2. Whether an extension order issued by an unauthorized person without the requisite performance appraisal under the DERC MDHR Regulations creates an enforceable contract

Regulation 5(a) of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Management & Development of Human Resources) Regulations, 2001, which mandates that contractual renewals be based on performance appraisal reports and subject to the Chairperson's discretion

Contractual employees have no vested right to renewal beyond the agreed term

Protections do not apply where the initial appointment lacked statutory approval or the extension violated prescribed internal regulations (Distinguishing Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand and Pawan Sharma v. Govt. of NCT Delhi)

Doctrine regarding the validity of orders based on stated reasons from Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner

The Court reasoned that for a contractual extension to be valid, it must strictly adhere to Regulation 5(a) of the DERC MDHR Regulations

In this case, the extension was issued nearly nine months prematurely, bypassing the requisite performance appraisal that can only be accurately conducted near the term's end

Furthermore, the order was issued by a Single Member in the absence of the Chairperson, who is the designated authority for such decisions

Consequently, no "enforceable contract" for the period 2024–2027 ever matured

The Court rejected the argument regarding a lack of hearing, stating that when a contract expires by "efflux of time," no natural justice requirement is triggered

Since the post was not a "duly sanctioned post" approved by the GNCTD, the Appellant could not claim the "legitimate expectation" protections usually afforded to long-term government contractual staff

It held that the "Order of Extension" was void-ab-initio for lack of competence and procedural non-compliance

The Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Single Judge’s order; however, the Court clarified that the Appellant remains eligible to participate in future recruitment processes for the post