CHENNAI: Holding that appointments on contract basis cannot be made to permanent posts, the Madras High Court has upheld an order of a single judge over regularisation of the services of a research associate employed with the Agro Economic Research Centre (AERC) attached to the University of Madras.
A division bench comprising Justices R Subramanian and G Arul Murugan passed the orders recently while dismissing the appeal filed by the university challenging the single judge’s order.
“The method of contractual appointment can be resorted to only when there is no permanent vacancy. Appointment of a contractual worker for a permanent sanctioned post itself is a dubious method,” the bench stated.
It termed the action of the university ‘wholly unjustified’ in refusing to regularise the services of the respondent, T Priya, serving as research associate at the AERC since 2011.
The university sent her a communication on April 19, 2023, asking her to employ herself through the university-approved outsourcing agency after a service break of seven days to continue in service. She approached the HC against this communication.
The university contended that her appointment was not permanent but extended from time to time; as per policy decision of the university, she has to get employed through the outsourcing agency. On July 30, 2024, the single judge ordered the university to regularise her services.
Against this, the university preferred the appeal. The division bench, while stating that no additional financial burden would be incurred to the university if it regularises the services of Priya as the Ministry of Agriculture is funding the project, said it finds the action of the university to be “wholly unreasonable”.
It said the university’s 2023 order denying regularisation was made for ‘extraneous reasons’ and noted that use of outsourcing as a shield to deny regularisation has been decried by the Supreme Court.
“The contention of the university that regularisation is not provided in the statutes of the university cannot be a ground,” the bench reasoned.
Stating that the bench does not find any reason to interfere with the single judge’s order, it dismissed the appeal.