Project-based service outside sanctioned posts does not confer a right to regularisation.

The petitioner challenged the University and College Tribunal’s dismissal of her appeal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, against her being relieved from service on 31 August 2002.

She had worked for the University in various temporary roles and, from December 1989, as a Data Entry Operator at its UGC-funded National/Library Information Centre.

Her appointment orders were for limited periods and described the work as temporary, project-based, or in leave vacancies; some stated that she would have no claim to a permanent post.

The University said that UGC funding for the project ended, and the project was discontinued.

During the petition, she reached the age of superannuation; no interim relief had been granted.

Whether the petitioner’s appointment was against a sanctioned post of the University, such that her project-related service could support a claim to continuation or regularisation.

Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of her appeal warranted interference in the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, provided the basis for the petitioner’s appeal before the Tribunal.

The Court applied the principle in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), particularly paragraph 45: long service in temporary or casual employment, even where the employee has limited bargaining power, does not by itself justify regularisation or continuation contrary to the constitutional scheme for public appointments.

The Court also treated a project post as distinct from a sanctioned post in the regular service structure, and as tenure-based or co-terminus with the project.

In reviewing the Tribunal’s decision, the Court considered whether its findings were perverse; it found no basis for writ interference.

The appointment orders showed that the petitioner’s earlier roles were temporary or in leave vacancies and that her later Data Entry Operator appointments were for limited periods and connected to the UGC-funded project.

Her name on a selection list did not establish appointment to a permanent post, as the list covered both permanent and temporary vacancies.

Since the project ended when UGC funding ceased, the Court held that the petitioner’s service was not against a sanctioned University post and that her long service did not create a right to regularisation under Umadevi.

The claim that others on the list had been made permanent was unsupported by evidence identifying their posts.

The Tribunal’s view was therefore not perverse.

Finding no perversity in the Tribunal’s decision, it dismissed the writ petition and discharged the Rule, with no order as to costs.