Ankush Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 29 MP

                                                         1                               WP-3451-2021
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         WP-3451-2021
                            (ANKUSH MISHRA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                      1
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 22-02-2021
                            Shri N.N. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners.
                            Shri Anuj Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

Petitioners have filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by issuance of fresh advertisement (Annexure-P/10) by respondents for appointment of Laboratory Technician on contract basis.

Counsel appearing for petitioner relied on the judgment of Apex Court in case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130.

Counsel appearing for petitioner relied on said judgment and submitted that an ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad- hoc or temporary employee and he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. It is further submitted that petitioners were appointed temporarily for period of three months and honorarium is to be paid on

monthly basis. Respondents have issued a fresh advertisement for appointment of Lab Technician on contract basis on 17.12.2020. It is submitted by him that one set of temporary employee cannot be replaced by another set of temporary employee and, therefore, fresh advertisement issued by respondents is bad in law and petitioner ought to be allowed to continue as Lab Technician till regular set of selected Lab Technician is appointed by the respondents.

Heard the counsel for the parties.

A s per advertisement dated 25.03.2020 (Annexure-P/1), petitioners were appointed on the post of Lab Technician on honorarium basis for period of three months temporarily. Period of three months has expired in

Signature Not June, 2020.

SAN Verified

Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI Date: 2021.02.23 14:17:57 IST 2 WP-3451-2021 It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that petitioners have completed ten months and are still continuing to work on the post of Lab Technician.

Appointment of petitioners was made only for period of three months and said period is already over. Petitioners were appointed to control Covid-

1 9 pandemic. Now, respondents do not deem it proper to continue the petitioners for further period. As petitioners were specifically appointed for controlling Covid-19 pandemic and new Lab Technicians which are being employed are not being employed for specific purpose, therefore, it cannot be said that Government is replacing petitioners with another set of temporary employees with same terms and conditions of employment.

Petitioners are at liberty to participate in the fresh recruitment drive for Lab Tecnician.

In view of same, writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed.

                                                                                   (VISHAL DHAGAT)
                                                                                        JUDGE


                      shabana




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
SHABANA ANSARI
Date: 2021.02.23
14:17:57 IST