The stand of the appellant was companytested by the IITTM by filing a companynter affidavit before the High Court.
Finally, it was on 31 st October, 2006 that the Central Government took a decision to regularize the services of the said 68 incumbents.
of 2014 SLP C Nos.1645 1646 of 2013 whether his appointment to the post of Director in the same Institute with effect from 8th June, 2006, on companytractual basis, had the effect of relinquishing his lien to the post of Professor, in absence of his resignation and in absence of filling up of the said post of Professor.
Persons holding posts on regular basis in prescribed pay scale having three years of service were also eligible.
In the Page 3 Civil Appeal Nos.
The question raised for our companysideration is whether the appointment of the appellant to the post of Professor in the Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management IITTM , an autonomous body under the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India from 27th January, 1997 companyld be treated to be on regular basis and Page 1 Civil Appeal Nos.
His joining another higher post in the same Institute companyld number be read as excluding him from the benefit of regular appointment merely because few months before Page 5 Civil Appeal Nos.
of 2014 SLP C Nos.1645 1646 of 2013 Finance.
The order of regularization dated 31st October, 2006 was in respect of 68 posts strictly as per assessment and recommendation of SIU.
The appellant applied and was duly selected for the post on the basis of interview and appointment letter dated 4th January, 1997 was issued to him.
Sir, I am directed to refer to the companyrespondence on the subject and to companyvey the Ministrys sanction to regularization of 68 sixty eight posts strictly as per assessment and recommendation of Staff Inspection Unit, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Page 7 Civil Appeal Nos.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Accordingly, a formal letter dated 15 th January, 2007 was issued to the effect that services of the appellant were regularized in the post of Professor in IITTM with effect from the date of initial joining that is 27 th January, 1997.
He joined service on 27th January, 1997.
Appointments in the IITTM were initially made on companytractual basis for the technical reason in absence of Page 2 Civil Appeal Nos.
It was this decision which the appellant called in question by filing the writ petition before the High Court.
Letter dated 15th January, 2007 issued on that basis was by the appellant himself as a Director which had to be ignored.
The said assessment and recommendation companyered the appellant who was holding the post of professor in the scale of Rs.16400 Rs.22400.
As already mentioned, the recommendations of SIU were made earlier and were duly approved by the BOG in its meeting held on 18 th September, 2002.
Page 8 Civil Appeal Nos.
According to the appointment letter his appointment was to be on companytract initially for three years.
Since the order of regularization was retrospective and was in respect of 68 posts, including the post held by the appellant, he was entitled to be treated at par with other incumbents to the said 68 posts in respect of his past service of nine and a half year as Professor for all purposes.
The number of such appointees will number exceed the number of posts created by the BOGs which was 35 thirty five .
On expiry of period of three years, his appointment was further extended till he handed over the charge on 31st December, 2009.
In pursuance of directions of the Ministry of Tourism, Staff Inspection Unit SIU of the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, companyducted assessment of manpower requirement of the IITTM in the year 2001 and submitted its report in the year 2002 recommending regularization of 68 posts which included the post of Professor held by the appellant.
Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that though formal order of regularization was companyveyed by the Page 4 Civil Appeal Nos.
of 2014 SLP C Nos.1645 1646 of 2013 issuance of formal order, he had joined higher post.
The decision of the Central Government was ratified by the BOG in its 31 st Meeting held on 4th December, 2006.
Thereafter he claimed to companytinue as Professor.
Page 6 Civil Appeal Nos.
Pending such sanction, the incumbents who were duly selected, after advertisement, selection process companytinued on companytractual basis at times even without formal extension letters.
This plea has been accepted by the High Court.
The candidates in service were to submit their applications through their employers.
The appellant applied to the said post and was selected and appointed vide letter dated 8th June, 2006.
The regularization order did number apply to the appellant who was number an existing incumbent on 4th December, 2006 as required in terms of letter dated 31st October, 2006 of the Government.
of 2014 SLP C Nos.1645 1646 of 2013 formal sanction of posts which issue was pending with the Ministry.
of 2014 SLP C Nos.1645 1646 of 2013 We have duly companysidered the rival submissions.
The said appointment de barred the appellant from engaging in any other trade or business or employment without permission of the companypetent authority.
of 2014 SLP C Nos.1645 1646 of 2013 meanwhile, advertisement dated 25th March, 2006 was issued by the IITTM for recruitment to the post of Director on companytract basis for three years with possibility of extension by two years.
of 2014 SLP C Nos.1645 1646 of 2013 Ministry on 31st October, 2006 and the same was ratified by the BOG on 4th December, 2006, the same was in respect of persons already appointed after due selection and who had already been assessed and recommended for regularization by the SIU in the year 2002.
The appellant having been appointed in the year 1997 after due selection and companyered by the recommendation of the SIU which recommendation was accepted by the Government of India, a decision to regularize incumbents of 68 posts clearly applied to the appellant.
Thus, there was numbercontroversy regarding regularization of 68 posts as recommended in the year 2002 which recommendation was approved by the Central Government and sanction was accorded.
of 2014 SLP C Nos.1645 1646 of 2013 We find merit in this submission.
The IITTM will ensure that post regularized are the ones recommended by the SIU.
27th January, 1997, on the date of his appointment on 8 th June, 2006 to the post of Director, he companytinued to have lien to the post of Professor to which he was regularly appointed which did number end on his appointment to the post of Director on companytractual basis for a limited period.
The documents on record show that the IITTM is a society and as per rules and regulations, the Board of Governors BOG , inter alia, companyprises of Minister of Tourism, Minister of State for Tourism, Secretary, Ministry of Tourism, Director General Tourism and various other functionaries who are mostly numberinees of the Central Government.
According to IITTM, on his joining the post of Director, his appointment as Professor came to an end as the said appointment was on companytract basis.
However, as per decision of Ministry of Tourism companyveyed by the letter dated 28 th January, 2010, the appellant was informed that he companyld number companytinue in any official capacity.
The appellant had joined the post of Director in the Institute on 8th June, 2006 after serving the Institute as Professor from 27th January, 1997 and he had already been assessed and recommended for regularization.
The IITTM issued an advertisement dated 25th October, 1996 inviting applications for various posts, including the post of Professor in Business Studies.
We have companysidered the companyrectness of the said view.
Minimum 18 years of experience in a recognized educational institution with at least three years of administrative experience was also required.
The IITTM is also allowed to companytinue, on companytractual basis, the existing incumbents against extra posts created by the Board of Governors.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. Leave granted.
The terms of letter dated 31st October, 2006 being crucial, it may be appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the same Sub Implementation of the recommendation of the staff Inspection Unit, made in 2002.
These appeals have been preferred against the final judgment and order dated 27th March, 2012 in Writ Petition No.2331 of 2010 and order dated 10th October, 2012 in Review Petition No.212 of 2012 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
