Introduction
Universities and public bodies frequently engage staff on short, renewable terms to meet operational needs. Where such engagements are extended again and again, the persons concerned often come to regard their continuation as a matter of right, and treat a decision not to extend as a termination calling for notice and a hearing. In Suvvala Sateesh and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (W.P. No. 27507 of 2024), a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, Justice Balaji Medamalli, has held that temporary employees engaged for a fixed tenure cannot claim continuation in service as of right once that tenure expires, even where their engagements have been extended repeatedly. The decision is a useful reminder that the terms on which a person was engaged, and not the length of the engagement, determine what rights arise at its end.
Factual Background
The petitioners, twelve in number, were temporary employees of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, appointed on various dates by the Registrar and entrusted with technical and administrative functions. They pleaded that they had discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the authorities, that no adverse remarks had been recorded against them, and that they held the requisite qualifications. They were initially appointed for 89 days on a temporary and daily-wage basis, and, according to them, their engagements were extended from time to time without interruption, resulting in continuous service.
In September 2024, the Registrar (Respondent No. 4) orally instructed the petitioners not to report for duty any further. On enquiry, they learnt that the Registrar had received instructions from the Vice-Chancellor (Respondent No. 3) not to grant further extensions to daily-wage employees until further orders. No prior notice, hearing or written order of termination was issued. The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the University’s action illegal and directing that their services be continued. Two interlocutory applications sought, respectively, a direction that their posts not be filled by other temporary employees and a direction to continue their services.
Contentions Before the Court
The petitioners contended that the discontinuation of their services was arbitrary and illegal, and violated the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. They relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Manish Gupta v. Jan Bhagidari Samiti, (2022) 15 SCC 540, for the proposition that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and may be replaced only by a regularly selected candidate appointed in accordance with the prescribed recruitment procedure.
The University (Respondent No. 4), in its counter affidavit, denied that the petitioners had been in continuous service. It submitted that they were engaged afresh for fixed terms of 89 days, with a break of one working day between successive engagements, that their appointments were not based on their educational qualifications and were made outside the regular recruitment process, and that there was no workload warranting permanent engagement. No further extension was therefore granted. According to the University, the engagements ended on expiry of the stated tenure, so that no separate termination order was required, particularly as the petitioners were paid wages only for the period during which they actually worked.
Fixed-Term Engagement Ends by Efflux of Time
The Court examined Ex.P2, the appointment letter filed by the petitioners themselves. It found that the Registrar had permitted the engagement only on a temporary basis, and that the terms recorded in the letter provided that the appointment was for a specific period, that the services rendered would not be counted as University service, and that the appointment was liable to be discontinued at any time without prior notice.
On this material, the Court held that the petitioners had been engaged only as temporary employees for a fixed tenure, and that such an engagement creates no enforceable right to continue beyond the period specified. Upon expiry of the tenure, the engagement comes to an end by efflux of time and cannot be treated as a termination from service attracting the principles of natural justice. Having accepted the terms of the temporary engagement, the petitioners could not claim continuation as of right after the stipulated period had ended.
The Court also observed that it is well settled that temporary or daily-wage employees do not acquire a vested right to regular appointment or to continuation merely because they have served for a considerable period. Repeated extensions, by themselves, do not confer a right contrary to the terms of appointment, and in the absence of a statutory right or contractual entitlement, no claim to continue beyond the engagement period can be sustained.
Replacement of Ad Hoc Employees and Disposal of the Petition
The Court noted that Manish Gupta concerned the replacement of one ad hoc employee by another. In the present case, no material had been placed before it to show that the petitioners were sought to be replaced by another set of temporary employees, and the record disclosed that their engagement was purely temporary and for a specified period, which came to an end in accordance with the terms of appointment. The ratio of Manish Gupta was therefore held to have no application.
Concluding that the petitioners had failed to establish any legal right warranting interference under Article 226, the Court dismissed the writ petition. It made no order as to costs, vacated any interim orders granted earlier, and closed all pending miscellaneous petitions.
AMLEGALS Remarks
The decision indicates that, in a challenge to non-extension of a temporary engagement, courts are likely to look first at the terms of the appointment letter and at whether the petitioner can point to a statutory or contractual right to continue. Institutions that engage staff on a temporary or daily-wage basis would be well advised to ensure that appointment letters state clearly the temporary and fixed-term character of the engagement, that the service is not to be counted as regular service, and that the engagement may end on expiry of the stated period. Where engagements are renewed in short terms, as the University described in this case, each renewal may be documented consistently so that it is demonstrably a fresh and distinct engagement. It may also be noted that the judgment does not record a separate finding on whether the one-day breaks actually occurred; the outcome rested on the terms of the appointment.
From the perspective of temporary employees, the ruling suggests that a plea founded only on long or repeated service, or on the absence of a termination order, is unlikely to succeed where the appointment terms provide otherwise. A claim would more plausibly require material showing a statutory or contractual entitlement, or, if the rule against replacing one ad hoc employee with another is to be invoked, evidence that the petitioners were in fact displaced by other ad hoc appointees.
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with Hiteashi.desai@amlegals.com