Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Chauhan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 November, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 5563 of 2022
----------
Sanjay Kumar Chauhan, son of Rambali Chauhan, resident of Ramchandra Niwas, Yamuna Nagar, Road No. 3, Near Vidyanagar, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, Dist. Ranchi.
.......... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi.
3. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi.
4. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi.
5. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, Dist. Ranchi.
6. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Ranchi, Abhiyantran Bhawan, Kutchery Road, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, Ranchi and P.S. Kotwali, Dist.Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
With
W.P.(S). No. 5564 of 2022
----------
1. Dinesh Kumar Singh aged about 39 years, son of Ganga Singh, resident of B.N. Singh Road, Hira Bagh, Matwari, P.S. Sadar, P.O. and District Hazaribagh.
2. Sanjeet Kumar Thakur aged about 34 years, son of Satyanarayan Thakur, resident of village Dhawannagar Omnagar, P.O. Gandhinagar, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi. .......... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
3. Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
4. Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
5. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.
6. Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Abhiyantran Bhawan, Kutchery Road, P.O. GPO Ranchi and P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
7. Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.
8. Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. and District Hazaribagh.
.......... Respondents.
With
W.P.(S). No. 5568 of 2022
----------
Hariom Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of late Ranjeet Prasad Singh, resident of Tenughat-2, Quarter No. TFA-21, P.O. Tenughat Dam, P.S. Gomia, Dist. Bokaro .......... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
3. Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
4. Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
5. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.
6. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. and District Hazaribagh.
7. Superintending Engineer, Tenughat Dam Circle, Tenughat, P.O. Tenughat Dam, P.S. Gomia, Dist. Bokaro .......... Respondents.
With W.P.(S). No. 5569 of 2022
----------
Anil Kumar Thakur, aged about 35 years, son of Yogendra Thakur, resident of Gari Hotwa, Khelgaon, P.O. Hotwar, P.S. Khelgaon, Dist. Ranchi.
.......... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
3. Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
24. Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
5. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.
6. Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Ranchi, Abhiyantran Bhawan, Kutchery Road, P.O. GPO Ranchi and P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
7. Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Medininagar, P.O. and P.S. Medininagar, Dist. Palamau.
.......... Respondents.
With
W.P.(S). No. 5806 of 2022
----------
Md. Parwez Raza, aged about 30 years, son of Md. Mokin, resident of 561, Millat Colony, P.O. Pelawal, P.S. Sadar, Dist. Hazaribagh.
.......... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi.
3. Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi.
4. Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi.
5. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, Dist. Ranchi.
6. Superintending Engineer, Jalpath Circle, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. and Dist. Hazaribagh.
.......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
-----------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, SC-I
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, SC-II
Mr. Sreenu Garapati, SC-III
Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV
----------
15/ 14.11.2024 The issues involved in all these writ petitions are same, similar and
identical and as such they have been tagged and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
32. Petitioners in W.P.(S). Nos. 5563 of 2022; 5569 of 2022 have approached this Court for quashing the letter dated 08.02.2022, by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that now the respondents will take the work discharged by the petitioner through Outsourcing Agency. Similarly, petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 5806 of 2022 has challenged the order dated 31.03.2021, by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated.
Petitioners have further prayed for direction upon the respondents to give extension and allow the petitioner to work till the services of the petitioners are being regularized in terms of judgment delivered by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 4682 of 2021, wherein this Court has directed to take fresh decision for regularization of services in terms of order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Petitioners have also prayed for quashing the letter dated 18.10.2022, whereby a decision has been taken to appoint computer operators and data entry operators through Outsourcing Agency.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details the petitioners were working as Computer Operators/ Data Entry Operators on daily wages basis. On 28.11.2008, a letter was issued by the Water Resources Department for appointment of Computer Operators, Data Entry Operators on contractual basis and hence, the Chief Engineer (Monitoring) directed all the Chief Engineers/ Superintending Engineers of the Water Resources Department to act accordingly. In terms of the letter of the Chief Engineer (Monitoring), the petitioners were appointed as Computer Operators/ Data Entry Operator on contract basis and their contract was extended from time to time. It is the case of the petitioners that vide letter dated 08.02.2022, the services of the petitioners have been terminated on the ground that now the work which the petitioners are discharging will be taken through Outsourcing Agency. Upon receipt of such letter, the petitioners made several representations to allow them to continue on the said post and also with a request to consider their cases for regularizations since they are working continuously to the said post since 2006 but the same went into vain.
44. It is the further case of petitioners that Prashashi Padwarg Samiti instead of extending the contract of the petitioners, in its meeting held on 27.06.2019 resolved that the work of computer operators and data entry operators shall be taken through Outsourcing Agency. However, the said decision of the Samiti was not approved by the Cabinet and hence, the same is not enforceable. It is the further cases of the petitioners that in terms of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nihal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65 and also in view of Regularization Rules, 2015 as framed by the State, their cases fall under the category of regularization and hence, they are entitled for regularization of their services.
However, when nothing has been done by the respondents and the contract of the petitioners have been terminated abruptly and illegally, they have been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of their grievances.
5. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assiduously urges that on 09.09.2021 the respondents have taken a decision to appoint computer operator or data entry operator through Outsourcing Agency, which is illegal, void and without jurisdiction in view of settled principle that ad hoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of ad hoc employees. Learned counsel further argues that even if the Department intend to appoint some persons through Outsourcing Agency they can do so but they cannot disturb the services of the present petitioners or similarly situated persons who are already working in the Department before the Agency signed the agreement with the Water Resources Department. Learned counsel submits that the said action of the respondent-authorities is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further argues that petitioners are also entitled for regularization of their services since they have completed more than 10 years of continuous service. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that recently in case of W.P.(S). No. 4682 of 2021 (Babita Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), decided on 27.07.2022, this Court directed the respondents to consider the cases of 5 petitioners of that cases for their extension as well as regularization of the services and the cases of present petitioners also stands on similar footing. The order passed by the Writ Court has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 438 of 2022, disposed of on 03.05.2023. Learned counsel further argues that for the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the cases of present petitioners shall also be considered for regularization and till the decision is taken in this regard, the respondents shall allow them to continue in service.
6. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently argues that vide letter dated 28.11.2008, issued by the Chief Engineer (Planning, Monitoring and Design), Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, the concerned persons were directed to take service of one Data Entry Operator on contract basis in each Offices of the Chief Engineers/ Superintending Engineers on the basis of prescribed conditions and declaration of the Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. The petitioners at the time of appointment have signed an agreement and as such, they are bound to accept the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract agreement. In spite of such specific stipulations, the petitioners along with other similarly situated persons managed to continue to work in the different establishments of the Department and subsequently, in the wake of work exigency their services were extended in terms of administrative approval/ orders issued from time to time and in terms of the said order they were getting their consolidated monthly remunerations. Learned counsel further argues that since no post of computer operator/ data entry operator was sanctioned in the Department, hence, a policy decision was taken by the State Government to take the work from Computer Operator/ Data Entry Operator as per need. The petitioners are not having any substantive right for claiming extension and it is the prerogative of the State to extend the contract/ agreement of the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that if the petitioners approach the empanelled agency, their cases will be considered for engagement, subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria.
67. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents places heavy reliance on the following judgments:-
I) Prince Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.
[W.P.(S). No. 1164 of 2021] along with other analogous cases, disposed of on 18.06.2024;
II) Nilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.
[L.P.A. No. 618 of 2018] disposed of on 03.06.2020.
8. Heard respective counsel for the parties at length across the bar. There is no quarrel to the settled propositions of law that one set of adhoc appointees cannot be replaced by another set of adhoc employees. It is equally not in dispute that a contractual employee has no right to continue to the post if the contract has been terminated as per the Agreement. It is well settled law that in case of contractual appointment, the services can be terminated as per the Agreement after issuance of one month's notice. No right has accrued for continuance on the said post and for regularization when the appointment itself is based on contract. Law is also well settled that if the termination is casting stigma on the part of employee then judicial review comes into play.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Prashotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1958 SC 36 has held as under:-
"28. In short, if the termination of service is founded on the right flowing from contract or the service rules then prima facie, the termination is not a punishment and carries with it no evil consequences and so Article 311 is not attracted. But even if the Government has, by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency and other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be complied with."
Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Swati Priyadarshini v. State of M.P., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139, reiterated the same view and observed as under:
732. Perusal of Clause 4 makes it clear that ordinarily, for inefficiency, one month's notice is sufficient. The Clause also makes it clear that if someone is found to have indulged in "undesirable activities", the Mission Director was competent to terminate such person's services "with immediate effect". We are afraid that the Respondents have placed themselves in a Catch-224 situation. If the order dated 30.03.2013 falls within the former part of Clause 4, as contended by the respondent, on the premise that it is a case of termination simpliciter and non-
stigmatic, then one month's notice was required to be issued to the appellant, which admittedly was not done in the instant matter. Arguendo, were the order dated 30.03.2013 to be seen as falling under the latter part of Clause 4, it would be stigmatic, as made clear by the use of the words "indulged in undesirable activities amounting to degradation of dignity of Mission".
10. In present set cases it appears that in W.P.(S). Nos. 5563 of 2022 and 5569 of 2022, the services of the petitioners have been terminated. Similarly, in W.P.(S). No. 5806 of 2022 vide order dated 31.03.2021, the services of the petitioner has been terminated. Further, the petitioners have commonly challenged the letter dated 18.10.2022, in which it is stated that the respondents are proposing to take services as rendered by the petitioners through Outsourcing Agency and if the petitioners want to discharge their services, they are required to come through the said Agency. The said letter dated 18.10.2022 (Annexure- 10 to the W.P.(S). No. 5563 of 2022) whereby decision has been taken to appoint Data Entry Operator/ Computer Operator through Outsourcing Agency has already been quashed and set aside by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P(S). No. 5841 of 2023 (Rakesh Kumar Sinha Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) which requires no interference by this Court.
11. From perusal of the facts, particularly, letter dated 03.11.2020 (Annexure-5 to the W.P.(S). No. 5563 of 2022), it appears that the services of the petitioners were recommended for regularization. Thereafter, only in view of Annexures-10 and 14 in W.P.(S). No. 5563 of 2022, when a decision was taken to make appointment through Outsourcing Agency, the services of petitioners have been terminated. A clear stand has been taken 8 by the respondents that as and when the petitioners comes through Outsourcing Agency, they will be considered for appointment if recommended by the concerned Outsourcing Agency.
12. All these aspects fell for consideration before this Court in case of W.P.(S). No. 4682 of 2021 (Babita Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and the matter was remitted back for taking a fresh decision in accordance with law. The Court was of the clear view that since respondents are in need of the services of the petitioners of the said cases and since they had been working continuously till date, the order of termination that also on the ground that they will be considered for appointment through Outsourcing Agency was held to be illegal and arbitrary. The order passed by this Court has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 438 of 2022, disposed of on 03.05.2023.
13. The relevant paras of the judgment delivered in the case of W.P.(S). No. 4682 of 2021 (Babita Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) reads as under:
"17. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners needs consideration for the following facts and reasons: -
i. The petitioners have been performing the duties over a period of time since their engagement in their respective department without any complaint and to the satisfaction of the respondents till filling of the instant writ petition. ii. The initial engagement of the petitioners are also not in question on any ground whatsoever illegality or irregularity.
iii. From the affidavit and statements made by the respondents that respondents are ready to engage these petitioners on the condition that they should come through other outsourcing agency, leads to the clear inference that the job in question has not come to an end and the respondents want to continue with such posts. iv. The stands of the respondents that there is no post of Computer Operator /Computer Data Entry Operator does not make sense on the ground that if there is no such posts how the persons/employees coming through outsourcing are being allowed to work on that post and if the petitioners also approach that outsourcing agency and names are 9 recommended, they will be allowed to work on the said post, the said policy of the State appears to be totally irrational.
v. There seems to be no justification to replace the petitioners, who are in engagement till filing of the writ petition by another set of personnel through different outsourcing agency.
vi. The respondents have tried their level best to impress this Court that the case of the petitioners for regularization has already been rejected and they are out of job as their cases for extension of contract has been rejected, is not acceptable by this Court since from the rejoinder to reply to the interlocutory application dated 21.07.2021, filed by the petitioners, it appears that the services of the petitioners were extended till 30.09.2021 during the pendency of the writ petition and thereafter, no decision has been taken on the representations of the petitioners and only because their cases for regularization has been rejected, the respondents are treating them to be out of service and not allowing them to continue to work on the plea that they should approach the other outsourcing agency and if recommendation comes from them, their candidature shall be accepted. This Court fails to understands that if there is no such posts and there is no requirement of Computer Data Entry Operator, how persons coming through other outsourcing agency are being allowed to work on the said post, which is not tenable in the eyes of law and against the settled principles what has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292 which reads as under:-
"3. We have carefully looked into the judgment of the High Court and other pleadings that have been put forth before this Court. It is clear that though the appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment as such it cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale nor that they should not be continued till regular incumbents are appointed. The course adopted by the High Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate for these persons who have gained experience which will be more beneficial and useful to the colleges concerned rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis. Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the High Court to the extent the same deny the claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in service 10 till regular incumbents are appointed. We direct that they shall be continued in service till regular appoints are made on minimum of the pay scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part accordingly.
vii. Further, similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Narinder Singh Ahuja & Ors. Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors., reported in (2014) 146 DRJ 167, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as under: -
"15. In the opinion of this Court, since the respondents nowhere dispute that there is need for the performance of the work that the petitioners were discharging all along and there is also no dispute that the project and funding (for the project) would continue till 2017, the decision to discontinue the petitioners' engagement is based only on the policy to outsource the contractual employment to a third party. The petitioners are not insisting on regularization, given the nature of the employment or engagement, which is project based. However apart from the decision to outsource"
engagement of contract employment to a third agency, there is no rationale to discontinue the petitioners' contracts. The justification that the employees engaged through the contractor are paid lower wages is arbitrary, because the "outsourced" or outsourcing agency would have to be paid its service charges. The lower wages paid, therefore, is, in effect, because of the charges/fees paid to the contractor/outsourced agency. The facts of this case clearly reveal that even though the work is to be performed by contractual employees, the reason for discontinuance of the petitioners employment is not their replacement with regular appointees, but instead, with another set of contractual employees. The state/respondents cannot, in the circumstances of this case, say that discontinuance of such employment cannot be gone into by the Court because the petitioners were aware that their contracts ended."
viii. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Court also in case of Pankaj Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No.6524/2017 and this Court vide order dated 18.01.2018 reiterated the same as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court. ix. The rejection of the case of the petitioners for regularization will not come in the way of taking a decision in the case of the petitioners for extension of their contract period till a decision is being taken for regular appointment and as such, impugned order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure- 18) is not tenable in the eyes of law and fit to be quashed and set aside as the same has been issued without taking into 11 consideration the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238, wherein it has been held thus:-
8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench.
9. The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise -- the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance.
10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc. x. Earlier in several cases this Court issued a clear direction upon the respondent-State to stop contractual appointments in the State of Jharkhand and State was directed to go for regular appointment, but it appears that no heed has been paid to the directions of this Court. Admittedly, the policy decision of the State is seldom interfered by the Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but wherever it appears that policy decision of the State is not inconsonance with the Rules, illegal and arbitrary, the Court is compelled to interfere.
xi. The reliance of the learned Senior Counsel, Advocate General on the judgments aforesaid, is of no help to him as the same are not applicable in the instant case and are distinguishable on the ground that in those cases, petitioners were out of service, whereas, in the present case, they were on roll till filing of the present writ petition i.e., on 30.09.2021."
1218. In view of the foregoing discussions, the respondents are directed to take a fresh decision for regularization in view of the aforesaid observations and directions and in view of the observation made in Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) case and also for extension of the contract period till regular appointments are made, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
14. It appears that being aggrieved by the order passed in Babita Kumari (supra), the Respondents State had preferred L.P.A No. 438 of 2022. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 03.05.2023 dismissed the L.P.A filed by the Respondent, upholding the order of the learned single Judge. The Division Bench has held that :
"It is settled principle that an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee and he must be replaced by a regularly selected employee. Accordingly, we find no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal. The order dated 27.07.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.4682 of 2021 needs no interference."
15. This Court in case of Babita Kumari (supra) has considered plethora of judgments and thereafter, taking into account the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238, has directed the respondents to take a fresh decision. Since the facts of the present cases are also identical to the facts of the case of Babita Kumar (supra), this Court takes no other view other than what has been observed by this Court in the said case.
16. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, the order of termination dated 08.02.2022 in W.P.(S). Nos. 5563 of 2022 & 5569 of 2022 and order dated 31.03.2021 in W.P.(S). No. 5806 of 2022 are hereby quashed and set aside. Since order dated 18.10.2022 has already been quashed and set aside by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P(S). No. 5841 of 2023 (Rakesh Kumar Sinha Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.), no interference is required on the same.
1317. The respondents are directed to take a fresh decision in cases of present petitioners for regularization and further for extension of the contract period till regular appointment is made, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this Order.
18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ petitions stand disposed of.
19. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Kunal/-
14