Allahabad High Court
Nitesh Kumar Singh vs Union Of India & Another on 20 July, 2010
Author: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Court No. - 30 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16282 of 2007 Petitioner :- Nitesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- Union Of India & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Ashok Kumar Pandey,H.Shekhar,Prashant Kumar Respondent Counsel :- A.S.G.I.,Deepak Gaur,S.C.,S.C. Verma,V.K.Shukla Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
The categorical case of the petitioner is two fold; one, that he is entitled to continue as his services are required ;and, secondly, that his claim of regularisation has also to be considered in view of such benefits having been conferred on Mohd. Rafiq and Rajesh Kumar.
The counter-affidavit of Mr. Prabhat Chandra Singh filed on 9.7.2007 encloses the revised recruitment Rules for the post of Helper. A conjoint reading of the advertisement and the terms & conditions indicated therein as well as the said revised Rules of recruitment, indicate that the post of Helper shall be filled up on contract basis to be extendable and renewable on the basis of performance. It appears that initially when these engagements were made, they were for one year and according to subsequent amended Rules of recruitment which has been filed along with the aforesaid counter-affidavit, the period has been extended to 5 years at the initial stage and extendable thereafter on review of the performance of the individual. The counter-affidavit further indicates that Mohd. Rafiq and Rajesh Kumar were in different departments of the same organization.
Learned counsel contends that that would not make any difference and there is no adverse report against the petitioner with regard to his performance so as to discontinue him or not to extend his engagement any further. It is further submitted that Rajesh Kumar and Mohd. Rafiq have been regularized in their services which facts have not been denied in the counter-affidavit.
Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that appointment being of the nature of a contract appointment, the petitioner can neither claim continuance as a matter of right and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the claim of regularisation also cannot be accepted.
The department is required to explain as to how and in what circumstances was the engagement of the petitioner discontinued when the same is extendable on the basis of review of the performance of the individual. There is nothing in the counter-affidavit which may indicate adversely against the petitioner nor is there any material to indicate that the petitioner's services were not required at all. Apart from this, there is no explanation much less a valid explanation with regard to regularisation of the two persons whose names have been noticed herein above.
The Respondent No.2 is, therefore, called upon to file an appropriate Affidavit clearly explaining the stand of the respondents with regard to the aforesaid position taken by the petitioner. The Affidavit shall be filed within 3 weeks. In the event the Affidavit is not filed by the respondent No.2, he shall be personally present along with records in relation to the contention raised in this petition by the next date fixed.
The matter shall be listed after expiry of 3 weeks on 12.8.2010.
Order Date :- 20.7.2010 Irshad Civil Misc. (Impleadment) Application No.150366 of 2008 Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.
This application is misconceived inasmuch as the claim of the applicant for continuance and regularisation is founded on the allegation in relation to the appointment order of Mohd. Rafiq and Rajesh Kumar at page Nos. 29 and 30 of the paper-book dated 11.7.2000 and 21.11.2003 respectively.
In view of this, there is no occasion for this Court to unnecessarily call upon the joinder of parties which would be a fruitless exercise. The application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 20.7.2010 Irshad