Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Findings of this Court

34. This Court finds that in the case of Babita Kumari & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others in W.P. (S) No. 4682 of 2021 decided on 27.07.2022 relating to the same respondent department i.e. Water Resources Department, the petitioners had approached the Court seeking extension of their services and not to terminate/disturb their services till regular appointments are made on the ground that they were working since more than 10 years without any complaint and their services were extended from time to time. The last renewal in their case was till 30.09.2021. They had also challenged the order dated 26.10.2021 whereby their claim for regularization was rejected and a prayer was also made to regularize their services in the light of numerous judgments including the judgment passed in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra). The State in its counter-affidavit in the said case referred to the decision of the aforesaid Committee dated 27.06.2019 where the proposal of the department was considered and recommendation was made to avail services of Computer Operators through outsourcing. A submission was also made that the decision of the Committee dated 27.06.2019 was not approved by the Council of Ministers in the light of the Circular No. 1638 dated 16.06.2006. In the said case, a stand was also taken that if the petitioners approached through outsourcing agency and their names are recommended, they will be allowed to work on the concerned post. This Court in paragraph 17(ix) of the aforesaid judgment held that the rejection of the case of the petitioners for regularization will not come in the way of taking a decision for extension of their contract period till a decision is taken for regular appointment. The order dated 26.10.2021 refusing to regularize the petitioners of the said case was set-aside by holding that the same was passed without taking into consideration the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238. The Court also observed that there were several cases directing the respondent-State to stop contractual appointment and to go for regular appointment but no heed was paid to such directions. The Court observed that admittedly the policy decision of the State is seldom interfered by the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but whenever it appears that the policy decision of the State is not in consonance with the rules illegal and arbitrary, the Court is compelled to interfere. The Court also observed that on the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 30.09.2021, the writ petitioners were on roll and they were subsequently discontinued.

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 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:-

58. Meaning thereby, neither the 'Computer Operator' has changed nor the respondents receiving the services have changed, but the modality of appointment has changed. Earlier decision was working directly by virtue of contract extended from time to time and now the same work is sought to be performed through outsourcing agency and by refusing to extend the period of contract. The records also reveal that the period of contract of the petitioner was extended from time to time subject to regular appointments. Thus, one ad-hoc arrangement of taking work through contract is replaced by another ad-hoc arrangement of taking work through outsourcing agency. As a decision to take work from outsourcing agency has not been approved by the Cabinet, there can be a situation where the State decides not to make any recruitment and get the work done through outsourcing agency but the same is essentially as a policy decision duly approved by the Cabinet. In absence of approval by the Cabinet with regard to taking work through outsourcing agency, the discontinuation of the petitioner on contract basis on the sole ground that the Computer Operators are now to be engaged through outsourcing agency cannot be justified in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the petitioner is held to be entitled to work on contractual basis till regular employment are made or till the policy decision is taken not to make any regular appointment and engage all computer operators through outsourcing agency.

62. Although the petitioner being engaged on contractual basis does not have any right to seek extension of contract but the impugned action of the respondents reveal that the respondents are replacing the ad hoc arrangement of taking work of Computer Operator through contract till regular appointments are made by another ad hoc arrangement of engaging Computer Operators including the petitioner through outsourcing agency. The new arrangement is an ad hoc arrangement as the decision dated 27.06.2019 taken by the Committee not to go for regular appointment of computer operators has not received the approval of the Council of Ministers. It has been, interalia, held in the judgement passed in the case of Babita Kumari and others (supra) in connection with Computer Operators in the same Water Resources Department as that of the petitioner working on contractual basis that an ad hoc arrangement cannot be replaced by another ad hoc arrangement and the appeal has also been dismissed. The view is based on the judgements passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as has been mentioned in the judgement itself.