Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Pooran Singh Choudhary vs State (Education Department)Ors on 15 September, 2011
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6892/2011 Rajnish Mishra Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 2. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 8311/2011 Pooran Singh Choudhary Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 3. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 8527/2011 Najmeen & anr Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 4. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6582/2011 Shyam Sunder Sharma & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 15.9.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr DK Bhardwaj - for the petitioners Mr Rajneesh Gupta for respondents BY THE COURT:
These writ petitions have come up on applications, however, with the consent of the parties, they have been heard together and decided by this common order.
Grievance of the petitioners is that they are going to be replaced by another set of contractual employees though law does not permit to do so. It is stated that petitioners were engaged as LDCs (in WP No.6982/2011, 8311/2011 and 8527/2011) and Care Givers, Computer Operators, Assistant Care Givers, Resource Teachers and Peons (in WP No.6582/2011. The respondents took decision to engage retired personnel to undertake the work of LDC, Computer Operator, Resource Teachers etc thus petitioners were left with no option but to approach this court. Interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioners and, accordingly, they are continuing.
Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that none of the petitioners would be replaced by another set of contractual employees. The replacement may be in case regularly selected candidates are available. It may be in certain cases that LDC, Computer Operator, Care Giver etc are not required for want of work, the respondents may take decision to discontinue their services, however, in future, if additional hands are again required for the posts concerned, petitioners would be given preference.
I have considered submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused record of the case carefully.
I find that even as per the statement of learned counsel for respondents, none of the petitioners would be replaced by another set of contractual/ temporary employees, however, they can be replaced by regularly selected candidates. Aforesaid is subject to availability of the work and a decision to be taken by the respondents to continue those, appointment on the posts concerned. It is, however, necessary to clarify that nobody should be engaged with different nomenclature of the post for the same work as is undertaken by the petitioners. The effort of the respondents should be to give effect to the order of this court truly and, if any one is required to undertake the same work, petitioners would be given preference for continuance for the same work subject to the observations and directions made above, all the writ petitions so as the stay applications are disposed of accordingly.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-J