Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhishek Dubey & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 1 March, 2012
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
W.P. 5494/2005 (S)
Abhishek Dubey & others
Vs.
State of MP and others
Present : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha.
For the petitioner : Shri S.R. Tamrakar, advocate.
For the respondents : Shri Lalit Joglekar, P.L..
ORDER
(01.03.2012) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have stated in their return that the petitioner no. 3 has been re-engaged, therefore, he does not wish to press the petitioner as far as relates to the petitioner no. 3.
2. The petitioners no. 1 and 2, who remain in the fray, have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 04.05.2005 passed by the District Project Director, Rajeev Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission, Raisen whereby the petitioners' engagement on contract basis as clerk grade - III has not been extended.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 were engaged as Lower Division Clerks Grade-III on 02.06.1995 in the establishment of the District Project Director, Rajeev 2 Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission, Raisen on contractual basis for a period of one year which was subsequently extended on 16.5.96 and 01.07.1997 and other dates. The petitioners' engagement was lastly continued by order dated 01.07.00 up to 30.09.00. It is stated that subsequently by impugned order dated 04.05.2005 the petitioners have been informed that the period of their contractual appointment has not been extended, therefore they would stand automatically removed from service. The petitioners being aggrieved by the same filed a representation and as no decision thereon was taken, the petitioners have filed the present petition assailing the impugned order.
4. The respondents have filed a return and have stated that the petitioners' appointment was purely contractual for a period of one year which was extended from time to time. It is stated that thereafter as work for the post of clerk was not available in the establishment, therefore, the District Level Selection Committee in its meeting dated 30.04.2005 decided not to renew the appointment of the petitioners no. 1 and 2 and accordingly the impugned orders were issued whereas the appointment in respect of the petitioner no. 3 was renewed as work was available. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
6. On a perusal of the record it is clear that that the petitioners were engaged purely on contractual basis for a 3 period of one year. It is also an admitted fact that their contractual appointment was not extended beyond 30.09.00 but they were continued till 2005 when the respondents took a decision not to renew the contractual appointment continue them in service any further.
7. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts it is clear that as on the date of issuance of the impugned order i.e. 04.05.2005 the period of contractual appointment of the petitioners was already over.
8. As admittedly the period of contractual appointment of the petitioners was over, therefore, the circular of the Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission regulating service conditions of the contractual employees of the Mission regarding resignation/termination which provides for one month notice prior to resignation/termination of a contractual employee, has no applicability to the petitioners case as the period of contractual appointment of the petitioners was already over, moreso, as the present case is not one where the contractual appointment is sought to be terminated during the currency of the contractual period
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that inspite of the fact that the period of the contractual appointment was over, they should have been given an opportunity of hearing before taking the impugned decision, is misconceived and legally untenable and is accordingly rejected. The impugned order, as far a it relates to th e petitioners no. 1 and 2, is therefore affirmed and upheld.
410. In the circumstances, the petition as far as it relates to petitioners no. 1 and 2 being without merits or substance is accordingly dismissed.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R. S. Jha) Judge msp 5