Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Chandan Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 780 of 2022
Dr. Chandan Kumar, son of Sant Kumar Sah ... ... Petitioner
- VERSUS-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and
Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and
Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Superintendent, Shaheed Nirmal Mahto Medical College and
Hospital, Dhanbad.
... ... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
(Through : Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
For the State Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, AC to AAG
---------------
02/24.02.2022 Petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.01.2022, as contained in
Memo No. 154, issued under the signature of respondent no. 4 whereby
respondent no. 3 has terminated the petitioner from the post of Senior
Resident, Department of Dental. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction
for regularization of his services and allow him to render service to the
post of Senior Resident.
Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that petitioner is working as Senior Resident, Department of
Dental in Shaheed Nirmal Mahto Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad
but his service is destined to an end on 27.02.2022 as the tenure of service
will come to an end on that very date. Learned counsel further submits that
petitioner is conscious of the fact that he has been appointed purely on
contractual basis and the tenure shall come to an end on 27.02.2022 but in
view of the fact that services rendered by the petitioner is permanent in
nature, which is reflected from records, he may be allowed to continue to
the said post. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the Judgment
passed in the case of Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjuab and
others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292 and submits that in case of
contractual appointment, the same cannot be replaced by way of another
set of contractual appointment.
Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, AC to learned AAG representing State
very fairly submits that in absence of counter affidavit he is not in a
position to controvert the same. Learned counsel further submits that
petitioner was appointed on tenure post and the same shall come to an end
on 27.02.2022 and as such he has no right to continue on the said post.
Learned counsel further argues that since petitioner had accepted terms of
appointment which talks of tenure posting and as such there is no illegality
or any infirmity in the impugned order. Petitioner has no right to continue
on the said post after expiry of tenure.
It appears that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court
in W.P.(S) No. 6142 of 2018 and vide order dated 17.12.2018, this Court
directed the respondents to file counter affidavit whether they are in need
of these doctors in view of the fact that there is dearth of doctors in the
hospitals in the State.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents are directed
to file counter affidavit within a period of two weeks.
Put up this case on 23.03.2022.
In the mean time, service of the petitioner shall not be disturbed till
next date.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
