Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chhaya D/o Dhanraj Khobragade, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University, to continue her services as Senior Research Assistant (Contract) for a period of three years from the date of her appointment. The petitioner had been initially appointed on 30/12/2017 for three years on a consolidated honorarium of Rs.10,000 per month. After completion of that term, she was reappointed on 01/04/2021 for another three years. Subsequently, the respondent issued an advertisement on 05/08/2024 for recruitment of various posts on contract basis, including the post of Senior Research Assistant with a consolidated honorarium of Rs.18,000 per month for a period of three years. The petitioner applied and was selected, but the appointment order issued to her was for a fixed period of 11 months only, not three years. The petitioner's application for extension of service, which ended on 04/08/2025, was not replied to by the respondent. The petitioner argued that she should have been appointed for three years as per the advertisement. The respondent opposed the petition, contending that the appointment was purely contractual for 11 months, which had already expired, and that the post was not a sanctioned post, so the petitioner had no right to continuation. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the appointment order is the contract between the parties, and the petitioner cannot claim a right to continue beyond the fixed term of 11 months. The advertisement did not create a vested right in the petitioner. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the claim for a writ of mandamus.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Contractual Appointment - Fixed Term - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioner appointed as Senior Research Assistant on contract for 11 months, though advertisement mentioned three years - Court held that the appointment order is the contract, and the petitioner cannot claim continuation beyond the fixed term - No vested right arises from the advertisement alone - Petition dismissed (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a contractual employee appointed for a fixed term of 11 months is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the employer to continue her services for three years based on the advertisement which mentioned a three-year period.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Contractual appointment
- fixed term
- no right to continuation
- writ of mandamus not maintainable
- advertisement not creating vested right
