Allahabad High Court
Assistant Professor Kamad Dixit vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Medical ... on 6 February, 2020
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 23 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3196 of 2020 Petitioner :- Assistant Professor Kamad Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Medical Education Lko & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar Tripathi,Ashutosh Mishra,Deepak Kumar,Jyoti Shukla,Kanchan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
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.
Order Date :- 6.2.2020 RBS/-
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]