Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ruchi Sharma vs State Of Raj & Ors on 1 July, 2011
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
Jaipur Bench
**
Civil Writ Petition No.14991/2010
Ruchi Sharma Versus State & Ors
Date of Order ::: 01/07/2011
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Mr. MK Chaturvedi, for petitioner.
Mr. RP Singh, Sr.Adv.-AAG, with Mr. Shashikant Saini, for respondents State Matter has come up on application filed by respondents on 29/03/2011 seeking vacation of interim stay order dt.10/11/2010. Looking to the controversy raised at the bar, on joint request, the matter is being decided at this stage.
Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that the petitioner has been engaged as Pracheta through placement agency but her services have been discontinued by respondents without any justification; and it has also been prayed that respondents may be restrained from making fresh appointments through placement agency.
It has come on record that NIT dt.09/06/2009 (Ann.R2B) was issued by respondent-3 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Pracheta through placement agency; pursuant to which, in all eight incumbents including petitioner were engaged to serve as Pracheta on contract, for which agreement was executed by petitioner for a term of one year w.e.f.22/03/2010 ending on 28/02/2011.
It has been brought on record that in all eight Pracheta were engaged through placement agency and none of them were allowed to continue after expiry of term of contract of one year and the NIT issued on 09/09/2010 for hiring services of the incumbent through placement agency for Nine Pracheta has been withdrawn vide document dt.22/02/2011 (AnnR/7).
Counsel for petitioner submits that discontinuance of her services from the post of Pracheta is arbitrary and the action of respondents is in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India.
Submission made by Counsel is wholly without substance for the reason that the petitioner was also engaged through placement agency by executing agreement effective from 22/03/2010 ending on 28/02/2011 and after expiry of the term of one year under the agreement, all the incumbents including petitioner serving as Prachetas were discontinued. That apart, it has come on record that no further tender notice has been published by the respondents for engaging incumbents as Prachetas. Petitioner has no right to continue in service as Pracheta after expiry of the term of one year under the contract. It is not the case that the petitioner is going to be replaced by another set of persons; and in absence whereof, this Court does not find any error in the impugned action and decision of the respondents discontinuing the petitioner, which may call for interference.
Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dt. 10/11/2010 stands vacated. No costs.
(Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p.3/ 14991CW2010July1-Ds.doc