S.L.P. (C) Nos. 22475-22476 of 2012                                                                                           Page 1 of 5      

NON-REPORTABLE  

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION  NOS. 22475-22476 OF 2012  

     Yogesh Mahajan               ...  Petitioner   

Versus  

Prof. R.C. Deka, Director,   

All India Institute of Medical Sciences                 ...    Respondent   

J U D G M E N T  

Madan B. Lokur, J.    

1. The petitioner who appears in person was initially engaged on a  

contract basis as a Technical Assistant (ENT) in the All India Institute of  

Medical Sciences in 1998.  The initial contract was for a period of three  

months, but it was renewed from time to time, without any artificial  

breaks, on a quarterly or a six monthly basis.  It appears that the services  

of the petitioner were taken on contract basis without following any laid  

down procedure and without adherence to any rules.  The contract of the  

petitioner was finally extended from  1 st  January, 2010 to 30

th  June, 2010.   

2. When the contract of the petitioner was not renewed after 30 th   

June, 2010 he approached the Principal Bench of the Central  

Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 4104 of 2010. The OA was

S.L.P. (C) Nos. 22475-22476 of 2012                                                                                           Page 2 of 5      

subsequently amended, but the essential prayer of the petitioner was to  

the effect that the order dated 24 th

November, 2010 passed by the All  

India Institute of Medical Sciences, declining to extend his contract ad  

hoc appointment by a further period of six months ought to be quashed.  

3. By its judgement and order dated 25 th  July, 2011 the Central  

Administrative Tribunal declined to grant this relief to the petitioner on  

the ground that he had no right to an extension of his services and further,  

he had no right to be regularised as a Technical Assistant since his  

appointment on a contractual basis or on an ad hoc basis was made  

without following any laid down procedure and without following any  

rules. In this regard, the Central Administrative Tribunal relied upon the  

decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) 1    

The OA was accordingly dismissed.  

4. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Central Administrative  

Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a review petition, but that too was  

dismissed. Eventually, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in the Delhi  

High Court being W.P. (C) No. 7870 of 2011.  The High Court passed a  

brief order recording that reliance placed by the Central Administrative  

Tribunal on the decision of this Court in Uma Devi was correct.  It was  

also recorded that the learned counsel for the All India Institute of  

                                                           1  (2006) 4 SCC 1

S.L.P. (C) Nos. 22475-22476 of 2012                                                                                           Page 3 of 5      

Medical Sciences had stated that no contract employee in the ENT  

Department had been granted an extension after 1 st  January, 2009.  In  

these circumstances the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the  

petitioner by its order dated 19 th  December, 2011.  The petitioner  

preferred a review petition in the High Court, but that too was dismissed  

by an order dated 24 th  January, 2012.  In the circumstances, the petitioner  

has preferred the present petition.  

5. We heard the petitioner, appearing in person, on 17 th  January,  

2018.     He submitted that there was no reason why his services were not  

extended. Even though he had received a favourable recommendation for  

the continuance of his services.   He contended that the decision of the  

All India Institute of Medical Sciences in not renewing his contract was  

arbitrary and unjustified.  The petitioner also drew our attention to a  

communication dated   22 nd

February, 2017 received by him from the All  

India Institute of Medical Sciences in response to a query made by him  

under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.   In the  

communication, it was acknowledged that in May 2016 three persons  

were appointed to the post of Technical Assistant (ENT) after a walk-in  

interview. The contention of the petitioner was that under the  

circumstances, it was clear that the All India Institute of Medical Sciences

S.L.P. (C) Nos. 22475-22476 of 2012                                                                                           Page 4 of 5      

needed the services of Technical Assistants and therefore there was no  

reason why his services were not extended.  

6. It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or  

her contract renewed from time to time.  That being so, we are in  

agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court  

that the petitioner was unable to show any statutory or other right to have  

his contract extended beyond 30 th

June, 2010. At best, the petitioner could  

claim that the concerned authorities should consider extending his  

contract. We find that in fact due consideration was given to this and in  

spite of a favourable recommendation having been made, the All India  

Institute of Medical Sciences did not find it appropriate or necessary to  

continue with his services on a contractual basis. We do not find any  

arbitrariness in the view taken by the concerned authorities and therefore  

reject this contention of the petitioner.  

7. We are also in agreement with the view expressed by the Central  

Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner is not  

entitled to the benefit of the decision of this Court in Uma Devi.  There is  

nothing on record to indicate that the appointment of the petitioner on a  

contractual basis or on an ad hoc basis was made in accordance with any  

regular procedure or by following the necessary rules. That being so, no  

right accrues in favour of the petitioner for regularisation of his services.

S.L.P. (C) Nos. 22475-22476 of 2012                                                                                           Page 5 of 5      

The decision in Uma Devi does not advance the case of the petitioner.  

8. Insofar as the final submission of the petitioner to the effect that  

some persons were appointed as Technical Assistant (ENT) in May 2016  

is concerned, we are of the view that the events of 2016 cannot relate  

back to the events of 2010 when a decision was taken by the All India  

Institute of Medical Sciences not to extend the contract of the petitioner.  

The situation appears to have changed over the last six years and the  

petitioner cannot take any advantage of the changed situation. There is no  

material on record to indicate what caused the change in circumstances,  

and merely because there was a change in circumstances, does not mean  

that the petitioner is entitled to any benefit.  On the other hand, it might  

have been more appropriate for the petitioner to have participated in the  

walk-in interview so that he could also be considered for appointment as  

Technical Assistant (ENT), but he chose not to do so.  

9. We find no merit in these petitions and they are accordingly  

dismissed.  

………………………J  

     (Madan B. Lokur)   

...……………………..J     

                             (Deepak Gupta)  

New Delhi;  

January 31, 2018