The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that it is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.
The High Court’s acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioners are contractual employees and their recruitment by the Respondents, through advertisement. The Respondent has to extend the employment of these employees from time to time and the Respondent published the contractual employment notice for conducting an open competition for selection against the vacancies on which the petitioners are contractually employed through walk-in interviews. Therefore, the Petitioner filed the writ petition to cancel the employment notice and to regularize their service period till retirement.
Contentions of the Petitioners
The Petitioners contended that a project employee or contractual employee cannot be let go from their service and be replaced by another project employee or contractual employee. It was furthermore contended that the act of suggesting positions while the petitioner is engaged in the same role is inherently unlawful, arbitrary, and perverse.
The Petitioner relied upon the judgment titled State of Karnataka v. Umadevi.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent contended that the petitioners cannot be given consideration for regularisation because, according to their appointment letters, they were hired via a separate recruiting process, with different terms and conditions, and a different pay scale. Their appointment was made only on a contractual basis. It was furthermore contended that the recruitment was carried out in an absolutely transparent, legitimate, and bonafide manner.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the mere fact that a temporary employee or casual wage worker is extended beyond the original term of his appointment does not grant him the right to be permanently hired or absorbed into regular service if the original appointment was not made in accordance with the applicable rules' requirements for a proper selection process. For temporary workers whose employment is coming to an end or for ad hoc employees who, by virtue of their appointment, do not acquire any rights, the court cannot interfere with normal recruiting.
The court noted that unless the recruiting process was conducted consistently and in accordance with the constitutional framework, the High Court, operating under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not customarily give directives for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuation.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the respective petitioners were fully aware of the nature of employment and accepted it thereby they cannot claim regularization, and merely because the petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis by the Corporation, the right of the Corporation to recruit persons on fresh contractual basis cannot be taken away.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the application.
Case Title: Pinkee Kumari V. The Chairman-cum-Member Secretary
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
Case No.: W.P.(S) No. 2805 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Parth Pratim Chatterjee, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raunak Sahay, Adv. Ms. Ahana Bhardwaj, Adv.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
