SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K. Venkataswami and A.P. Misra, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 5106 of 1996. D/d. 4.8.1998.

State of Tripura and others - Appellants

Versus

Jhuma Gupta (Smt) and others - Respondents

Appointment - Contract of employment - Non-renewal of - Proper relief - Folk artistes were employed by the State Government on contractual basis on a consolidated pay - Contracts were extended from time to time during five years - Thereafter, dissatisfied with their performance, the State Government appointed a Screening Committee which, on examination, found some of them below the mark and recommended their discontinuance - State Government not renewed the contracts of such persons - Such persons moved to the High Court for continuance and regularisation - Single Judge directed them to be re-examined by another Screening Committee and be absorbed on being found eligible on such re-examination - Direction, held, reasonable and valid - Direction of Division Bench for their continuance in service with back wages, held, unsustainable - Appeal allowed.

[Para 7]

ORDER

K. Venkataswami, J. - This appeal is directed against the Division Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 371 of 1994.

2. The respondents along with others were appointed on a contractual basis as Folk Artistes on a consolidated pay of Rs. 535 per month in the year 1988. The contracts were extended from time to time till 1992. Thereafter the appellant thought that the performance of all the Folk Artistes was not satisfactory and on that ground appointed a Screening Committee to test the capability and suitability of the Folk Artistes. All the Folk Artistes including the respondents appeared before the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee on examination found that 26 Artistes were not up to the mark and they need not be continued. Out of 26 Artistes, 4 people were blind and the appellant on compassionate grounds had retained them in service notwithstanding the finding of the Screening Committee. The contracts of 22 Folk Artistes, consequently, were not renewed. It appears that 20 of them had moved the High Court for continuing them and for regularisation.

3. A learned Single Judge of the High Court after hearing the parties directed the appellant to constitute another Screening Committee to find out whether really those 20 Artistes were not up to the mark and, therefore, their contracts were not renewed. The learned Single Judge further directed that if the Screening Committee finds some of the appellants to be eligible, their cases of absorption will have to be considered by the authority.

4. The respondents, not satisfied with the direction given by the learned Single Judge, preferred an appeal to the Division Bench and the Division Bench after setting out the arguments of the appellants and of the respondents before it and without giving any reason to differ from the view that was taken by the learned Single Judge, set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of the respondents with back wages and all consequent privileges. The Division Bench however gave liberty to the appellants that they can terminate the services of any of the respondents in accordance with law.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the present appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellants.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no good reason given by the Division Bench to ignore/overlook the fair and reasonable direction given by the learned Single Judge and the respondents cannot take exception to the direction given by the learned Single Judge to appear before another Screening Committee. The respondents were only engaged on the basis of contracts which were renewed year after year and this Court has held that such employment will not give them any right to be continued or to be regularised.

7. The direction given by the learned Single Judge to constitute a second Screening Committee to find out the capability of the Artistes who are not selected by the first Screening Committee, in our view, appears to be reasonable on the facts of this case and also in accordance with law and, therefore, the view of the Division Bench directing the continuance of Artistes who are not selected by the Screening Committee with back wages cannot be sustained. We are of the opinion that the respondents having taken a chance by appearing before the first Screening Committee and failing to get through had no vested right to continue or to refuse to appear before the second Screening Committee as directed by the learned Single Judge.

8. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench under appeal and restore that of the learned Single Judge. We give three months' time to the appellants to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge.

9. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.