Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhupen Gehlot vs The State Of Rajasthan on 22 July, 2021
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8605/2021 Bhupen Gehlot S/o Dr. M.R. Gehlot, Aged About 29 Years, Working As Speech Therapist Cum Audiologist In The Department Of E.N.T., M.D.M. Hospital, Jodhpur. Residing At Shiv Mandir Road, Ratanada, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Medical Relief Society, Jodhpur.
3. The Superintendent Of Mathuradas Mathur Hospital, Jodhpur.
4. Principal And Controller, Dr. S.N. Medical College And Groups Of Hospital, Jodhpur.
5. Professor And Head Of Department, ENT Department, MDM Hospital, Jodhpur.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Sankhala For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary for Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 22/07/2021
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged E-tender Notice dated 29.06.2021, whereby bids from eligible bidders/dealers to provide items & services of experts have been invited.
2. The petitioner feels aggrieved of the proposed contract for providing Audiologist & Speech Therapist for audiological services on contract basis.
3. Mr. Girish Sankhala, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent's action of inviting bids for Audiologist and (Downloaded on 23/07/2021 at 08:45:21 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-8605/2021] Speech Therapist for Audiological services is illegal. He contended that consequent to introduction of a service provider, petitioner's engagement as Speech Therapist & Audiologist will be brought to an end, which will be contrary to the principle that one set of contractual employee cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee.
4. In support of his argument aforesaid, learned counsel placed reliance upon an interim order dated 18.08.2020, passed by this Court in Navin Saini Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7207/2020) and the judgment dated 10.12.2015, passed by this Court in Ramesh Chandra Nayak & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7671/2015) and the judgment of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. : 2016(1) WLC (Raj.) UC 336 decided on 11.12.2015.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that engagement through placement agency is illegal.
6. Upon perusal of material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner's engagement too, was made through a placement agency, namely Maa Vaishno Devi Security Services. The petitioner is, therefore, not a contractual employee - he has no direct contractual relationship with the respondents.
7. By way of impugned E-tender notice, the respondents are looking for a service provider or placement agency who would provide Audiologist & Speech Therapist for audiological services.
8. In the opinion of this Court, by no stretch of imagination, petitioner can be considered as a contractual employee. The (Downloaded on 23/07/2021 at 08:45:21 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-8605/2021] principle - "one contractual employee cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee", thus, does not apply.
9. The petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court as to whether there is a sanctioned post for Audiologist & Speech Therapist for audiological services and apart from that whether his engagement was against such sanctioned post.
10. So far as the interim order dated 18.08.2020 cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, the said interim order was granted observing that the petitioner therein was working on contract basis on the post of Computer Operator with machine since 2008, whereas in the present case the petitioner's engagement that too through service provider is of 2019 itself.
11. So far as judgment of Ramesh Chandra Nayak (supra) is concerned, the case related to a contractual employees, which were being replaced by fresh candidates, appointed through placement agency. Similar is the situation in the case of Jagdish Prasad Yadav (supra), as is evident from para No.2 and 4 of the writ petition.
12. The argument of learned counsel that this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that engagement through placement agency is illegal, in the opinion of this Court, is not available to the petitioner, who himself is a beneficiary of a placement agency.
13. The principle as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is applicable only when the contractual employees are engaged on adhoc basic, on fixed pay against sanctioned posts, that too by the State awaiting regular recruitment. (Downloaded on 23/07/2021 at 08:45:21 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-8605/2021]
14. This Court does not find any merit and substance in the present writ petition, for which it is hereby dismissed.
15. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 76-Ramesh/-
(Downloaded on 23/07/2021 at 08:45:21 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)