Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kaushal Singh Parihar vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 21 July, 2017

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

                             JODHPUR.


                                 ..


        S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7987 / 2017.


Kushal Singh Parihar S/o Manohar Singh Parihar, Aged About 28

Years, R/o At Present Working As Lab Assistant At CHC Banar

District Jodhpur.


                                                      ----Petitioner


                                  Versus


1.   The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Medical and

     Health   Department,     Government   of   Rajasthan,    Jaipur.

2.   Director, Medical and Health Services, Government of

     Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3.   Additional Director, Medical and Health Services, Government

     of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4.   Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limites (RMSC),

     Department of Medical & Health Services, Health Bhawan,

     Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.

5.   Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jodhpur.

6.   CHC-Incharge, CHC-Banar, Jodhpur


                                                    ----Respondents


_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s)   :        Mr. Shreekant Verma.
_____________________________________________________
                                (2 of 4)
                                                          [CW-7987/2017]




                   JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
                       Judgment / Order
21/07/2017

BY THE COURT:

The petitioner has approached this Court feeling aggrieved of the order dated 08.06.2017 (Annex.9) whereby, his services on contractual basis have been dispensed with on account of the fact that duly selected candidate, one Mr. Neeraj Ojha, has taken charge w.e.f. 07.06.2017 on the post of Lab. Assistant.

Mr. Shreekant Verma, learned cousnel appearing for the petitioner, challenging the order impugned, contended that the petitioner has been working on the post of Lab. Assistant on contractual basis and his term has been extended till 28.02.2018, vide order dated 31.03.2017. He submitted that before expiry of the term, mentioned in the order, the order dated 07.06.2017 terminating the services of the petitioner is illegal. Taking this Court to para-19 of the memo of the writ petition, he submitted that there are total 4 posts at Community Health Centre (CHC), Banar and only one permanent Lab. Assistant has joined the duties and three posts are still lying vacant at the Community Health Centre (CHC), Banar.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, including the pleadings to which, (3 of 4) [CW-7987/2017] attention of the Court was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

A perusal of the petitioner's appointment order dated 31.03.2017 (Annex.7), referred to by the petitioner, reveals that the extension order of the petitioner's contractual employment is stringed with following Condition No. 3:-

^^3- mDr inksa ij jkT; ljdkj }kjk LFkkbZ deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr dh tkrh gS rks bUgsa lsok ls gVk;k tk ldrk gS rFkk budk dk;Z lUrks'ktud ugha gksus ij gVkus dk vf/kdkj v|ksgLrk{kjdrkZ dk jgsxkA^^ The condition, quoted above, leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner's extension was subject to the condition, that extension would come to an end, as soon as, a duly selected permanent employee is appointed on such post.
It is not in dispute that regular selection on the post of Lab. Assistant has taken place and pursuant to which, one Mr. Neeraj Ojha, has joined the duties on 07.06.2017. As such, the order dated 08.06.2017, dispensing with the services of the petitioner, is in consonance with the order dated 31.03.2017, extending his terms of contractual employment.
With regard to the petitioner's contention that three posts of Lab. Assistant are still lying vacant, this Court is of the (4 of 4) [CW-7987/2017] considered opinion that the facts alleged by the petitioner cannot be inquired into by this Court. This Court has to see the propriety and illegality of the order impugned which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is in consonance with the terms of the employment of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim continuation on the contractual terms, till eternity.
In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
/Mohan/47