Allahabad High Court
Dr. Alka Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Medical ... on 13 February, 2020
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 21 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4066 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dr. Alka Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Medical Edu. Lko. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Mohan Pradhan,Avinash Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Pratap Singh Chauhan, learned Counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
"i)issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order issued by opposite party No. 1 dated 15.01.2020 as well as advertisement dated 28.01.2020 issued by opposite party No. 3 so far as with respect to Sl. No. 22 Lecturer Pharmacy for filling on contract basis contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition.
ii) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider the petitioner's extension which is going to expire on 20.02.2020 and the respondent be restrained to hold selection on contract basis of the post of Lecturer Pharmacy in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Prayag Raj and if be made be not given effect to.
iii) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to frame the rules for regularization of Medical College Teacher including Lecturers working on contract basis since more than 10 years."
It is stated that in the similar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court interfered in the matter and passed the judgment and order dated 06.02.2020 in Writ Petition No.3196 (S/S) of 2020 (Assistant Professor Kamad Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Others). The judgment and order dated 06.02.2020 reads as under:-
"Heard Sri Rohit Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishal Verma, learned State counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed inaction on the part of the opposite parties whereby they have issued advertisement for replacing the petitioner, who is serving on the post of Assistant Professor (contract) in General Surgery Trauma Centre, Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi from another contractual employee, which is not permissible in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that as per his earlier extension order, the petitioner shall be discharging his duties till 18.9.2020, therefore, till 18.9.2020, he shall be continuing on the post in question unless the post in question is filled up by the Commission through direct recruitment strictly in accordance with law.
The petitioner has, however, not assailed the advertisement, therefore, Sri Vishal Verma learned State counsel has submitted that no relief can be granted to the petitioner against the advertisement in question. Sri Verma has further submitted that this writ petition is premature and has been filed under the impression that term of the petitioner shall not be extended, however, no such instructions to that effect has been received.
Be that as it may, when any contract employment is offered to an employee for a period of one year or till he/ she attains the age of 70 years or till regular selection is made by the Commission, the competent authorities should abide by this condition in its letter and spirit. If such contract employee is replaced by any other contract employee without having any cogent reasons to that effect, that may not be termed as a good exercise for the reason that the contract employees or ad hoc employees should not be replaced by the contract or ad hoc employees and such replacement should only be made from the employees selected by the Commission through direct recruitment. Therefore, I hereby dispose of this writ petition finally directing the authority competent to revisit the issue particularly on the point as to whether the contract employees can be replaced by the contract employees for the reason that such exercise is not appreciated by the courts. After revisiting on the issue, if the authority competent arrives at a conclusion, an order to that effect may be issued and apprised to the petitioner before his term expires so that he could take legal recourse strictly in accordance with law."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present writ petition being similar to the Writ Petition No.3196 (S/S) of 2020 be disposed of in terms of judgment and order dated 06.02.2020.
It is further stated that as the term of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (Pharmacy) in the Medical College, Prayagraj, on which post, the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2009 would come to an end on 20.02.2020 as such the competent authority be directed to consider the case of the petitioner prior to expiry of term.
The learned counsel for the State does not dispute the order passed by this Court dated 06.02.2020 in the similar facts and circumstances.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 06.02.2020, the benefit as given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 06.02.2020 would be available to the petitioner.
Keeping in view the fact that the terms of the petitioner would come to an end on 20.02.2020, it is provided that the competent authority shall make an endeavour to decide the claim/representation of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this Court and if possible, the same shall be considered and decided prior to 20.02.2020, the date on which the term of the petitioner would expire.
With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.
It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 13.2.2020 Jyoti/-