Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Respondent no. 1 - State of Uttarakhand has filed the counter affidavit in the matter. According to the State, the IMCs have to make arrangements to hire the contract faculty to provide the training to the candidates and there is no requirement of prior approval or permission from the Government for making appointment of the contract faculties. As also it is stated that for removal of these contract faculties from their services, there is no requirement to get prior approval or permission from the Government.

15. The removal order has been assailed on the ground that it has been passed under the directions of the Secretary, State of Uttarakhand, whereas, the State, in its counter affidavit, totally denied necessity of any approval or permission of the State Government in case of either appointment or removal of a contract faculty.

16. It is admitted position to learned counsel for the petitioners that the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with after their contract period.

17. This Court posed a question to the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Alok Mahra as to which legal or constitutional right of the petitioners have been violated or infringed, which may require judicial intervention. In response to it, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed under the Scheme which is to continue for thirty years.

18. Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel appearing for another set of petitioners adopts the arguments as advanced by Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel and also submits that the petitioners who have been deployed on contract basis through UPNL cannot be substituted by another set of contract faculty; the Scheme is for thirty years; the contract employees deployed by UPNL may be removed only on the ground of misconduct; some of the petitioners have only been relieved from their work till further orders; they are still teaching in their respective ITIs.

40. In the case of Official Liquidator (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred to the judgment in the case of Piara Singh (supra), in which case the Hon'ble Court observed that "an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee, he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority".

41. On behalf of the petitioners, it is apprehended that they may be replaced by another set of contract faculty, but on behalf of the IMCs, it is categorically being argued that the IMCs have no intention to substitute the petitioners with another set of contract faculty. According to the learned counsel for IMCs, the IMCs are not in a position to appoint any contract faculty due to paucity of funds.