Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand And Ors vs Paras Mani Pandey And Anr on 4 December, 2014
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R.R. Prasad, Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 155 of 2014
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary,
Department of Health, Medical Education and Family
Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Director in Chief (Food), State Food Control
Directorate under Health, Medical Education and Family
Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. ... ... Appellants-State
Versus
1. Paras Mani Pandey
2. Vidya Nandan Vidyarthi ... ... Petitioners-Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
-----
For the Appellants-State : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent-Petitioners : Mr. Shrestha Gautam, Advocates
-----
06/04.12.2014. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner/respondent No.1 was initially appointed as Sanitary Inspector in the year 1998 at MADA whereas the petitioner/respondent No.2 was appointed as Lab Technician/Food Inspector in the year 1985 at MADA. Subsequently, they underwent training of the Food Inspector. After they underwent training, they were designated as Food Safety Officer vide Notification dated 16.01.2012. Thereupon they were deputed to discharge their duties as Food Safety Officers on ad-hoc basis. Subsequently, eight persons were appointed as Food Safety Officers on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 27.12.2012 and by the said order, the petitioners/respondents were reverted to its original post as Sanitary Inspector and Lab Technician/Food Inspector respectively.
The petitioners did challenge that order vide W.P.(S) No.91 of 2013, which was allowed whereby the impugned order dated 27.12.2012 was quashed.
Being aggrieved with that order, the State has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that eight persons, who were ordered to discharge the duties as Food Safety Officers though on the ad-hoc basis, but they were better qualified than the petitioners/ respondents as those persons earlier were the Food Inspectors and subsequently, they were designated as Food Safety Officers.
Further, it was submitted that MADA has been merged with the State Government and, therefore, the State was within its competence to adjust its employees and in that event if the petitioners/respondents had been sent to its parent department, nothing wrong was committed and, thereby, learned Single Judge committed illegality in quashing the impugned order dated 27.12.2012.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ respondents submits that it is wrong on the part of the appellants to say that those eight persons were better qualified as the petitioners/respondents though had been appointed as Sanitary Inspector and Lab Technician, but subsequently, they underwent training as Food Safety Inspector and only on completion of the training, they were redesignated as Food Safety Officer and in that event, they, after being designated as Food Safety Officer had been asked to discharge the duty on ad-hoc basis as Food Safety Officer and hence, in such event any order for replacing them by way of ad-hoc arrangement, through another set of persons, would certainly be bad in view of the decision rendered in a case of State of Haryana And Others vs. Piara Singh And Others reported in (1992)4 Supreme Court Cases 118 and hence, learned Single Judge did not commit any illegality in quashing the impugned order dated 27.12.2012.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record including the impugned order, we do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents.
It be stated that the submission made on behalf of the State that those eight persons were better qualified is not acceptable for the reason that the petitioners/respondents, on being appointed as Sanitary Inspector and Lab Technician, had subsequently underwent training of the Food Inspectors and only after completion of the training successfully, they were designated as Food Safety Officer and thereupon they were discharging their duties as Food Safety Officer by way of ad-hoc arrangement but their replacement by another set of persons for discharging their duties as Food Safety Officer that too on ad hoc basis is quite bad, in view the decision referred to above wherein Their Lordships have held as under:-
"45. The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary employee.
46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.
47. Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly."
Thus, it is evident that the petitioners/respondents, who were discharging their duties, as Food Safety Officers on ad-hoc basis, have been replaced by another set of persons by way of ad-hoc arrangement, which, in terms of the decision referred to above, is bad.
Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 13.12.2013 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.
(R.R. Prasad, J.)
Ravi/ (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)