Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Se Shailendra Jain vs State Of Raj & Anr on 31 January, 2011
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9800/2010. Dr.Ramjee Lal Raigar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9826/2010. Dr.Neha Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9798/2010. Dr.Shailendra Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 4) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9799/2010. Dr.Vinod Kumar Dayma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 5) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9827/2010. Dr.Neha Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 6) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9828/2010. Dr.Yashpal Pachori Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 7) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9829/2010. Dr.Poonam Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 8) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9830/2010. Dr.Sweta Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order:- January 31, 2011. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ajay Kumar Jain for the petitioners. Smt. Shruti Dixit, Deputy Government Counsel. ******* BY THE COURT:-
1) In all these matters, State of Rajasthan has filed applications for vacation of interim-order but the documents are sufficient to decide the matter finally therefore, said matters are being decided by this common order.
2) Petitioners in these cases were appointed on the post of Senior Demonstrator. Their appointments were made pursuant to the different advertisements whereby, applications were invited from eligible candidates imparting teaching course in different streams for a period of six months or till the regularly selected candidates from the Rajasthan Public Service Commission are made available as prescribed in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Advertisement was issued on 23/10/2009. An agreement was executed between the petitioners and the respondent-State in the light of the advertisement. Petitioners were continued even after completion of six months but in the meantime, they approached this Court apprehending that respondents might have again issued advertisement advertising the same post substituting them by another set of contractual employees. This Court pursued by the arguments of the petitioners, passed interim-order in each of these cases to the effect that respondents will be free to make fresh selections pursuant to the advertisement but without replacing the petitioners by another set of contractual employees. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited the judgments of Supreme Court in R.Venugopal Vs. State of Kerala : 1988 JT(3) 189, Dr.(Mrs.) Chanchal Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan : AIR 2003 SC 1713 to argue that one set of ad-hoc/temporary employee cannot be replaced by another set of ad-hoc/temporary employee. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Mahendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2010 (4) CDR 2044 (Raj.) wherein also, fixed term appointment on contract basis on the posts of Nurse Grade II and Lab.Technicians was given to certain persons and after expiry of the contract period, they were removed. This Court relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Singh & Ors., reported in (2003) 10 SCC 284 and other judgments held that they cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees till regularly selected candidates are made available by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission.
3) Smt.Shruti Dixit, learned Deputy Government Counsel has argued that respondents have terminated the contractual appointments of the petitioners on expiry of term indicated in the contract. If and when vacancies are advertised whether on contract or regular basis, petitioners would be at liberty to again apply. Action of the respondents in seeking to fill up the vacancies on contract basis at the time when earlier term of contractual appointment expired, cannot be faulted.
4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, I find that respondents could not deny the necessity of availing services of the petitioners on contract basis in teaching faculty. The appointment orders of the petitioners indicate that they are being engaged on contract basis on fixed term or till the availability of regular candidates by the RPSC/DPC. So long as respondents want to avail services of any one on such vacant post even on contract basis on fixed term, petitioners cannot possibly be replaced by another set of ad hoc/contractual employees because they are already available to serve the respondents on such posts. Ratio of the judgments of Supreme Court in R.Venugopal and Dr.(Mrs.) Chanchal Goyal supra would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and it is in that light, the co-ordinate bench of this court in Mahendra Singh supra also held that petitioners would be entitled to continue in service thereby extending their term of period of contractual appointment till such candidates are available by the RPSC. It goes without saying that while extending the contractual appointment, petitioners would be liable to execute a similar contract with the respondents-State but then respondent-State would be at liberty to dispense with service of any such contractual employees, who is not rendering the satisfactory services.
5) Writ petitions are allowed with the directions indicated above.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
ani