Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash Bhura vs Technical Education And Skill ... on 19 March, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
W.P. No.17859/17 (Prakash bhura and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.)
(-1-)
W.P. No.17859/2017
(Prakash Bhura and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.)
Indore, dated: 19.03.2018
Parties through their counsel.
The Division Bench of this Court on 05.02.2018 has
passed the following order in W.A. No.418/2017 (The State
of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Puneet Mohan Khare):-
"W.A.No. 418 / 2017
[THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. PUNEET MOHAN KHARE]
Jabalpur, Dated : 05.02.2018.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Vinay Vijayvargiya, Advocate for the respondents.
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order- dated 28.3.2017, whereby an interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 9627/2016 and other cases to restrain the Appellants to continue with the recruitment process and to allow the writ petitioners who are continuing in job to continue, was ordered to be continued.
The writ petitioners were appointed on contract basis on different posts such as Managers, Office Assistant- cum-Accountants or Class IV employees as per Module prepared for establishing Kaushal Vikas Kendra in the State in furtherance of the resolution of the Legislative Assembly No.50 for upliftment of vocational education, ITI Institutes or to restructure and upgrade them. MP Council for Vocational Education and Training has been created for such purpose. 133 Skill Development Centres have been decided to be established.
Initially, the posts in such Skill Development Centres were filled up on contract basis, but subsequently the contract period came to an end on or before 16.5.2016. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.17859/17 (Prakash bhura and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.) (-2-) Thereafter, it was decided not to extend the contract period, but to invite fresh applications to man these centers. Against such action, writ petitions were filed challenging the engagement of fresh hands in lieu of the existing contractual employees. The learned Single Judges have passed an order to protect the existing contractual employees.
The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that on 28.3.2017, the day the interim order was ordered to continue by this Court, it was decided that to abolish the posts of the contractual employees. It was also decided that the work of Kaushal Vikas Kendra shall be carried out by taking persons on deputation from the Skill Development Centres of the State Government. For the post of Managers, the Training Superintendent shall be taken on deputation; for the post of Accountant-cum- Office Clerk, Assistant Grade III working in the State Government shall be taken up; whereas the Trainers were decided to be engaged through an outsourcing agency. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a Supreme Court order reported as Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another Vs. Director General of Police, Assam and others, (2009) 6 SCC 611, wherein, it was found that adhoc appointments under the Scheme are normally co-terminus with the Scheme, subject to earlier termination either on medical or disciplinary grounds, or for unsatisfactory service or on attainment of normal age of retirement. It is contended that since Scheme is still in force, the State cannot dispense with the services of the writ petitioners employed after undergoing selection process with another set of contractual employees. The relevant paragraph read as under:-
"17. When the ad-hoc appointment is under a scheme and is in accordance with the selection process prescribed by the scheme, there is no reason why those appointed under the scheme should not be continued as long as the scheme continues. Ad-hoc appointments under schemes are normally co-terminus with the scheme (subject of course to HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.17859/17 (Prakash bhura and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.) (-3-) earlier termination either on medical or disciplinary grounds, or for unsatisfactory service or on attainment of normal age of retirement). Irrespective of the length of their ad hoc service or the scheme, they will not be entitled to regularization nor to the security of tenure and service benefits available to the regular employees. In this background, particularly in view of the continuing Scheme, the ex-serviceman employed after undergoing selection process, need not be subjected to the agony, anxiety, humiliation and vicissitudes of annual termination and re- engagement, merely because their appointment is termed as ad hoc appointments."
We find that such judgment does not help the argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent, as contractual employee has no right to continue on the post after the expiry of the contract period, but it is also equally well settled that a contractual employee cannot be substituted by another set of contractual employee. Therefore, we find that the appellants can be permitted to engage substantive employees of the State Government on the post of Manager or Accountant-cum- Office Clerk. But the appellants cannot be permitted to outsource the Trainers by dispensing with the services of contractual employees as the Trainers who have discharged the work on contract basis are available. The engagement of Trainers through outsourcing the services is another way of engaging Trainers on contract basis. Therefore, we dispose of the present appeal by modifying the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge from time to time as follows:-
1. The appellants shall not engage another contractual employee including outsourcing the services of Trainers.
2. In case a Trainer in a particular Trade is not required at a particular Centre, the appellants shall avail the services of such Trainers in the other Skill Centers, subject to the consent of such Trainer to work in another center.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.17859/17 (Prakash bhura and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.) (-4-)
3. The services of the Trainer in the other Training Centers shall not be dispensed with unless the appellants find that services of the Trainer are not required in any of the Centres and its need shall not arise in the near future.
4. But if in future, any Trainer is required in a particular Trade after dispensing the service of a Trainer, the Appellants shall re-engage the Trainers, who were engaged at an earlier point of time.
Thus the appeal is disposed of accordingly in the above terms."
The order delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.418/2017 on 05.02.2018 shall be applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case also.
(S.C. Sharma)
N.R. Judge
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA
Date: 2018.03.19 15:50:10
+05'30'