S.S. Nijjar and Nirmal Singh, JJ.

1.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper book.

2. It transpires that the petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Store Purchase Officer in the respondent No. 2-National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) some time in the year, 1995. His application was considered by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 10.5.1995. On the basis of selection, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sore Purchaser Officer, on the fixed emoluments of Rs.4500/- per month on a contract of one year. It was stipulated that the contract may be extended by the NIPER if the exigencies of work so demand subject to his satisfac- tory work and conduct. It was clarified that the extension cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioner. It was also clarified that the services can be dispensed with during the period of contract by giving one months prior notice or emoluments there- fore without assigning any reason/or on joining of a regular appointee. The petitioner likewise was permitted to quit by giving one months notice or emoluments therefor. He was directed to submit the acceptance within two days of he receipt of the letter (An- nexure P-2). The petitioner appears to have joined on the said post. Subsequently, a public notice dated 16.12.1995 (Annexure P-3) was issued by the NIPER inviting appli- cations for various posts mentioned in the public notice. The petitioner applied and was selected on the post of Selection Officer (Store and Purchase).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the public notice (Annexure P-3) did not make any mention that the post was to be filled on contract ba- sis. It was a regular sanctioned post. It was also argued that the petitioner had earlier been assured that he would be adjusted as and "when the post of Store and Purchase of- ficer is regularly sanctioned. Four days after the public notice was issued the peitioner made a representation on 20.12.1995 (Annexure P-4). He pointed out that during the interview held on 10.05.1995, it was committed by the Director of NIPER that the petitioner would be absorbed in the Institute on regular basis as and when the sanction of the post of Store and Purchase Officer is received from the Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. Now in the public notice published in the Tribune dated December 16, 1995, the post of Section Officer (Stores and Purchase) which was one step junior to the post on which the petitioner was already working, had been advertised. The petitioner was told that he may apply for the post of Section Officer (Stores and Purchase) for the time being and in due course of time, he would be absorbed on the higher post of Stores and Purchase Officer on which he had initially joined in June, 1995. The petitioner submitted the application for the post of Section Officer (Stores and Purchase) on 04.01.1996. The petitioner was appointed on the said post by order dated 02.03.1996 (Annexure P-5). In the aforesaid order (Annexure P-5), it was mentioned that the appointment on the post of Section Officer (Stores and Purchase) is on contract basis for a period of five years commencing from the date of assuming charge of the post. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aggrieved against the contractual appointment, the petitioner made a representation (Annexure P-6) on the very same date, for deletion of the stipulation that the appointment is on contract for five years. It is further submitted that the respondent-Institute instead of paying any heed to the representation of the petitioner, compelled the petitioner to execute the contract of service. Learned counsel further submits that instead of appointing the petitioner on regular basis, the Director of NIPER has wrongly issued an office order (Annexure P-8) renewing the contract of the petitioner for a period of five years. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that under the rules framed by NIPER for recruitment to Faculty/Scientific/Technical/Ministerial and other post(s), the post held by the petitioner would fall within the definition of "permanent post". The respondents have wrongly termed the appointment of the petitioner as contractual". According to the learned counsel, the term "contractual appointment" as contained in para 2 of the appointment letter (Annexure P-5) deserves to be deleted.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.

5. The service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the rules known as Rules for Recruitment to Faculty/Scientific/Technical/Ministerial and other posts, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "The Rules"). The petitioner accepted the initial appointment on contract basis under these Rules as per order dated 20.03.1996 (Annexure P-5). He made a representation on 20.03.1996 (Annexure P-6). Inspite of the representation having been made, the petitioner accepted the appointment on 20.03.1996. This apart, the petitioner again accepted the renewal of Contract of Service for a period of five years w.e.f. 21.09.2001. Under Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules, various categories of posts are defined and some of which are as under: -

"3. DEFINITIONS.

XXX XXX XXX XXX

"Permanent Post" means the post carrying definite rate of pay and sanction without limit of time.

"Temporary Post" means the post carrying definite rate of pay and sanction for a limited period of time.

"Contractual Post" means the post carrying definite rate of pay and sanction without limit of time but against which appointments are made for a limited period of time, which shall be renewable and carry all the benefits of permanency except for the consequences of being on contract."

Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules provides as under: -

"4. Rules for Recruitment

(1) General Provisions.

(a) All the appointments against the sanctioned posts in the institute (listed in Rule 4(6) shall be made on contract basis for which a contract agreement shall be signed by both the employer and the employee. The contract shall not be valid for more than years period at a time, and subject to satisfactory performance of the employee, it may be further renewed for a period not exceeding five years at a time. The contract will be terminable from either side on a three months notice. Except from the consequences of being on contract, the posts filled on contract shall accrue all the benefits of permanency. (NIPER)"

6. The petitioner accepted the appointment under the aforesaid provisions. There is clear sanction under the rules for making appointment on contract basis. The petitioner accepted, even though reluctantly, the offer of appointment. In that offer of appointment, there was a clear stipulation that contract is for five years i.e. from 20.03.1996 which could be extended further on mutual agreement. The relevant Clauses of the appointment letter (Annexure P-5) are as under: -

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

"2. 1 am glad to inform you that in pursuance of the interview held on 20.03.96 and on the recommendation of the Section Committee, you have been appointed as Section Officer (Store and Purchase) on an initial basic pay of Rs. 2300/- per month in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500 on contract basis for a period of 5 years commencing from the date of your assuming charge of the post. 3. The other terms and conditions of your appointment will be as under: -

(a) The contract period of 5 years could be extended further on mutual agreement depending upon your willingness to continue for a further period of your suitability to the institute as the case may be. The contract period could also be terminated earlier on 3 months notice by either side.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

(c) You will be governed by the Central Government Service and Conduct Rules as applicable to NIPER Employees,

xxx xxx xxx xxx

(e) Before you are allowed to join duty, you will be required to enter into an agreement/contract of service with NIPER (on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.10/-) as per format enclosed, which would contain the main terms and conditions of your contract appointment including those mentioned above."

7. Having accepted the aforesaid conditions, the petitioner cannot be permitted to claim that he is entitled to be appointed for indefinite period. We are also unable to hold that the offer of appointment has been accepted by the petitioner under any compulsion or duress. The petitioner is a highly qualified individual. He is not some helpless Class IV employee who has been compelled to accept a contract of employment which is un- fairly advantageous to the respondent-Institute. There is no allegation of any mala fide or coercion, even pleaded. There is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner has not accepted the contract voluntarily.

8. in view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dis missed.

Sd/- Nirmal Singh, J.