Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
1 WP-860-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 860 of 2018
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 14081 of 2017
HARISH KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
Additional documents i.e. appointment order of petitioner-Manoj
Kumar Sharma as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III filed vide covering
memo dated 18.02.2025 are taken on record.
2. This common order shall govern disposal of both the aforesaid writ
petitions, as the question of law and facts involved herein, are similar. For
the sake of convenience and in order to effectively address the issue involved
herein, the facts relevant for adjudication are being culled out and taken from
WP No.860 of 2018.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
2 WP-860-2018
3. The challenge in both the petitions is made to the impugned order
dated 21.01.2008 passed by Collector Rewa (M.P.) whereby appointments of
the petitioners on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III have been
cancelled in suo moto proceedings. The petitioners are further aggrieved by
the order dated 29.05.2017 passed by Commissioner Rewa Division Rewa
(M.P.) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that Gram Panchayat Paharkha Janpad
Panchayat Gangeo District Rewa (M.P.) passed a resolution for appointment
of the petitioner on the post of Guruji, in pursuance of which Janpad
Education Committee Janpad Panchayat Gangeo approved the name of the
petitioner for appointment to the post of Guruji in its meeting held on
23.09.2001. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Gangeo District
Rewa wrote a letter to Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Paharkha to the effect that
the petitioner has been selected on the post of Guruji vide letter dated
20.12.2001. He was sent on training of Guruji which was held between
10.06.2002 to 30.06.2002. The petitioner took the charge on the post of
Guruji on 20.12.2001 and informed the said fact to the Chief Executive
Officer Janpad Panchayat Gangev. The bank accounts were operated in the
name of the petitioner as Guruji as is reflected from letter dated 02.02.2002.
The Chief Executive Officer issued orders on 23.11.2002 and 13.12.2002
whereby petitioner-Manoj Kumar Sharma and others i.e. petitioners in
connected WP No. 14081 of 2017 were appointed as Samvida Shala
Shikshak Grade III in Government High Secondary School Unchatola Block
Gangev Tahsil Sirmour District Rewa. He worked from December 2002 to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
3 WP-860-2018
December 2005 as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III and in the meantime
the petitioner did his D.Ed course from District Education and Training
Institution, M.P. run by the State Government. Since the petitioner and others
were appointed for a period of three years on contract basis subject to the
condition of satisfactory working, their contract period was further extended
for a period of three years but the Chief Executive Officer while extending
the services of the petitioner and others sought recommendation/guidance of
Collector Rewa for extension of their services. The Education Committee of
Janpad Panchayat Gangeo vide resolution dated 23.12.2005 sent a proposal
for extension of services of the petitioner and others for further three years.
Thereafter, the Collector took a suo moto cognizance with respect to the
appointments of the petitioner and others and issued notices to them. The
Collector Rewa issued the show cause notice vide note sheet dated
10.04.2006. A detailed reply has been filed to the aforesaid show cause
notice by them. Thereafter, the order dated 21.01.2008 has been passed by
Collector Rewa in suo moto proceedings cancelling the appointment of the
petitioner and others on the ground that the original documents of
appointments of the petitioner and others are not available in the office of
Janpad Panchayat Gangeo. The Collector has not considered the aspect that
the Janpad Panchayat is the custodian of the records, therefore, the said
ground was not available to the Collector. Another ground taken by the
Collector is that the appointment of the petitioner and others to the post in
question is contrary to the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala
Shikshak (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001. Being
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
4 WP-860-2018
aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Rewa
Division Rewa which was dismissed vide order dated 29.05.2017. Therefore,
the present petition has been filed on the ground that the period for initiating
suo moto proceedings by the Collector, the limitation is only 60 days. The
petitioner was issued appointment letter on 20.12.2001. He worked on the
post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III from December 2002 to
December 2005 and his work was found to be satisfactory by the authorities
and proposal for extension of contract period was made but the learned
Collector has not taken note of the aforesaid aspect and has taken suo moto
proceedings against the petitioner and others. It is further submitted that the
appointment letter of the petitioner has been issued under the signatures of
Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gangeo. The respondents-
authorities are the custodian of the record. They were aware of the fact that
the appointment order has been issued to the petitioner. The proceedings
which have been filed clearly indicate that in terms of the resolution passed
by the authorities which was duly approved by the Chief Executive Officer,
Janpad Panchayat Gangev District Rewa, appointment order to the vacant
post of Guruji was issued to the petitioner on 20.12.2001. The learned
Collector has taken note of the fact that the note sheet dated 25.11.2002
issued by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State for appointment of the
petitioner to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III is not available in
the records, therefore, the appointment is per se illegal and without following
the Rules. Therefore, the petition has been filed.
5. On notice being issued, a detailed reply has been filed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
5 WP-860-2018
respondents denying the petition averments. It is contended that the original
record pertaining to appointment of the petitioner and others to the post in
question is not available. The District Education Officer vide its letter dated
01.05.2006 has pointed out that in terms of the letter dated 13.12.2002
written by the then District Education Officer to the Chief Executive Officer,
Janpad Panchayat Gangeo District Rewa considering the petitioner as a
special case due to which all the rules were relaxed and special appointment
order on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III was issued on
humanitarian grounds but the original document/note-sheet written under the
signatures of Hon'ble Chief Minister is not available in the records. On
searching and asking for the records, the same was not found and it was
informed that the said record is not available. It is the case of the respondents
that the appointment to the post in question was done on compassionate basis
but the Rules i.e. Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Contractual Teachers
(Conditions of Appointment and Service) Rules, 2001 have not been
followed. Further, as far as the ground pertaining to the limitation of 60 days
for exercising suo moto proceedings is concerned, he has placed reliance
upon the judgment passed by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Ranveer Singh (Dead) through LRs vs State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in
ILR 2011 MP 1 decided 30.08.2010 wherein it is held that from the date of
knowledge of the illegality committed, the limitation has to be counted. It is
argued that when the matter was forwarded by the Chief Executive Officer
seeking approval for extension of the contractual period of the petitioner, the
illegalities came to the knowledge of the Collector and he summoned the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
6 WP-860-2018
entire records pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner and others then
it was found that no such records pertaining to appointment of the petitioner
and others are available in the department. Under these circumstances, suo
moto powers were exercised from the date of knowledge of the illegalities
committed in granting appointment to the petitioner and others. He has
prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The sole question which crops up for consideration before this Court is
whether the suo moto proceedings exercised by the Collector beyond the
period of 60 days are sustainable or not ?
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued the appointment order
under the signatures of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat
Gangeo District Rewa which has been filed today along with Covering
Memo No. 2800 of 2025. Further, vide order dated 20.12.2001 (Annexure
P/2), he was appointed on the vacant post of Guruji. In pursuance to the
same, he submitted his joining on the post in question on 20.12.2001 under
intimation to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gangeo District
Rewa. The bank operations were started in the name of the petitioner which
is reflected from the letter dated 02.02.2002 issued under the signatures of
the Development Block Education Officer, Gangeo District Rewa. The
record reveals that the petitioner and others were appointed on the post of
Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III vide orders dated 23.11.2002 and
13.12.2002 and thereafter they continued to work on the post in question
upto December 2005. There was no proceeding initiated at any point of time
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
7 WP-860-2018
by the authorities against the working of the petitioner and others. Initially
the appointment to the post in question i.e. Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade
III was made for a period of 3 years subject to further extension on
satisfactory work. The work of petitioner and others was found to be
satisfactory, therefore, the recommendation for extension of their contract
period was made and the matter was sent by the Chief Executive Officer
Janpad Panchayat Gangeo District Rewa for seeking approval from the
Collector Rewa for extension of the contractual period. On 10.04.2006, when
the irregularities came to the knowledge of the Collector Rewa, the matter
was taken up in suo moto proceedings and it was found as follows :
संचालक, लोक िश ण संचालनालय, म० ० भोपाल का प कमांक
वस०अ/बजट/30/2006/303 भोपाल, दनांक 22.03.2006 के प रपालन म
त कालीन मु य कायपालन अिधकार , जनपद पंचायत गंगेव, जला र वा के
आदे श कमांक 554, 585/ व./अनुक पा /िनयु / 2002 आदे श दनांक
23.11.2002 एवं 13.12.2002 जसके तहत ी हर श शमा इ मुिन शमा
पता राजीवलोचन शमा, ाम ऊचा टोला, पो ट पहरखा. शा० उ० मा० व०
ऊंचा टोला, वकास ख ड गंगेव, ी मनोज कुमार शमा, अितशेष सहायक
िश क, शासनाधीन अ जान, उ०मा० व० गगहरा, शा० उ० मा० व० ऊंचा
टोला, वकास ख ड गगेव, ी रनजीत चतुवद शा० उ० मा० व (मा यिमक
वभाग) ऊचा टोला, ी सतीश शमा, शा० उ० मा० व (मा यिमक वभाग)
ऊचा टोला, ी पवन कुमार शमा शा० उ० मा० व० (मा यिमक वभाग) ऊचा
टोला जला र वा म िश ा कम वग-3 के पद पर िनयु या क गई है ।
अधीन थ कायालय के उ आदे श के अवलोकन एवं पर ण करने पर
िन निल खत अिनयिमतताये एच अवैधािनकता पाई गई:-
(1) अधीन थ कायालय ने अपने प कमाक संिश /2006/165 गगेच दनाक
16.01.2006 म लेख कया गया है क वष 2002 म सं वदा शाला िश क वग-3
क िनयु माननीय मु यमं ी महोदय के नोटशीट दनांक 25.11.2002 एवं
जला िश ा अिधकार र वा का प कमांक 534 दनाक 20.11.2002 एवं प
कमांक 558, 560, 562, 564 दनाक 13.12.2002 के स दभ म त कालीन
मु य कायपालन अिधकार , जनपद पंचायत गगेव ारा क गई थी. क तु
उ िनयु य से सबंिधत मूल अिभलेख जनपद पंचायत कायालय म
उपल ध नह है ।
(2) अधीन थ कायालय ारा स दिमत प म यह भी प कया गया है क
अनावेदक गण क िनयु या सं वदा शाला िश क वग-3 के पद पर
त कालीन मु य कायपालन अिधकार जनपद पंचायत गंगेव ारा क गई है ,
क तु सामा य शासन सिमित गंगेव का अनुमोदन नह कराया गया है ,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
8 WP-860-2018
जब क सामा य शासन सिमित का अनुमोदन कराया जाना आव यक है ।
(3) वकास ख ड िश ा अिधकार , गंगेव जो चयन सिमित के पदे न सिचव है .
उनसे कसी कार का िनयु य के संबंध म सहयोग िलया जाना नह ं पाया
जाता।
9. Thereafter, on the same day, the Collector issued show cause notices to
the petitioner and others and were asked to file the response by 01.05.2006 or
appear before the authorities along with the relevant records. They appeared
before the authorities and prayed for a short time to file response to the show
cause notice. On 18.09.2006, the reply was filed before the authorities and
the matter was placed for arguments on 23.10.2006. Thereafter, the final
order was passed on 21.01.2008 (Annexure P/9) observing as under :
1. करण आज आदे श हे तु िलया गया।
2. आदे श पा रत कया जाकर करण म पृथक से संल न कया गया।
3. मु य कायपालन अिधकार , जनपद पंचायत गंगेव, जला र वा के आदे श
कमांक 554, 585/ व/अनुक पा / िनयु /2002 आदे श दनाक 23.11. 2002
एवं 13.12.2002 जसके तहत अनावेदक गण क िनयु सं वदा शाला
िश क वग-3 के पद पर शासक य उ चतर मा यिमक व ालय एवं शासक य
क या एवं पूव मा० व० क या. ऊचा टोला, वकास ख ड गंगेव, तहसील
िसरमौर, म गई है , अवैधािनक एवं िनयम व होने के कारण िनर त क
जाती है ।
4. चू ं क त कालीन जला िश ा अिधकार , र वा, मु य कायपालन अिधकार ,
एवं वकास ख ड िश ा अिधकार ारा बना िनयु का मूल अिभलेख न
होने के वावजूद अनावेदक गण को िनयु दनाक से िनयु िनर तगी
दनांक तक य द वेतन आहरण कराया गया है तो जला िश ा अिधकार र वा
को आदे िशत कया जाता है क संबंिधत अिधका रय के व पृथक से
वभागीय जांच सं थत करने क कायवाह करते हुए रािश क वसूली कर।
10. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is seen that there is virtually no
consideration by the learned Collector while cancelling the appointment of
the petitioner and others. While cancelling their appointments, he has further
directed to make recovery from erring officer and has directed for conducting
an enquiry against him. The entire order sheets are placed on record since
from the date i.e. 10.04.2006 i.e. the date on which the suo moto cognizance
was taken by the learned Collector. No proceedings took place on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
9 WP-860-2018
23.05.2006, 19.06.2006, 31.07.2006, 21.08.2006 and 05.09.2006. It is only
on 18.09.2006, the reply has been filed by the counsel who was appearing
for the petitioners before Collector Rewa. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on
23.10.2006. None of the order-sheets shows that the learned Collector had
directed to the authorities to send the complete record pertaining to
appointment of the petitioner and others in question. The matter was
adjourned thereafter on several dates for one or the other reason, either on
behalf of the authority i.e. Collector Rewa District Rewa (M.P.) who was not
available or was busy in some administrative work or on the request of the
counsel appearing for the petitioners; however, the matter was finally heard
on 21.01.2008 whereon learned Collector has only observed that the
appointment orders have been issued without following the Rules in vogue
and in absence of any records pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner
and others, the entire proceedings are illegal. The fact remains that the
Janpad Panchyat is the custodian of the records. If the records are lost from
the department/panchayat then how the petitioner can be blamed for it. There
is no consideration pertaining to the same. The appointment orders which
were issued to the petitioner and others dated 23.11.2002 and 13.12.2002
clearly show that they are issued by the Chief Executive Officer Janpad
Panchayat Gangeo District Rewa. The work of the petitioner and others was
found satisfactory by the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Gangeo
as he has sought approval from the Collector Rewa for extension of their
services. Even the letter dated 23.12.2005 issued by the Education
Committee Janpad Panchayat Gangeo shows the satisfaction regarding
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
10 WP-860-2018
petitioner's working. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners
have procured their appointment by playing fraud, rather it is the case of the
respondents that that the note sheet written by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on
the basis of which the entire Rules were relaxed and the appointment orders
were issued in favour of the petitioner and others. The record pertaining to
such appointments are not available in the office. The petitioners cannot be
held responsible for the same.
11. Respondents' counsel has placed an order dated 23.11.2012 (Annexure
R/1) whereby services of the then District Education Officer, Rewa who has
issued the special appointment orders were terminated on the ground that he
committed several irregularities while discharging his official duties. The
fact remains that no fact-finding enquiry has been conducted by the
authorities as far as the appointment of the petitioner and others is
concerned. The order which has been placed on record dated 23.11.2012 is
with respect to the then District Education Officer, Rewa pointing out the
fact that in Special Case No. 14 of 2004, he was convicted under Sections
420 & 120B of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years, 2
years and 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs.
15,000/- respectively with default stipulations. After his conviction, the
proceedings in terms of Rule 19(1) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 were drawn against him
and his services were terminated. The relevant extracts of the order dated
23.11.2012 reads as follows :
ी िम ा ारा लोक िश ण संचालनालय के अ तगत उप संचालक िश ा के
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
11 WP-860-2018
पद पर पद थापना के दौरान अपने पद य दािय व के िनवहन म क गई
अिनयिमतताओं के कारण अपराध करण कमांक 97/98 सं थत हुआ है एवं
उ करण म क गई अिनयमतताओं के कारण ह माननीय वशेष
यायाधीश पी.सी. ए ट. र वा ( ी ओंकार नाथ) म व. .क. 14/2004 दनांक
31.12.2004 सं थत कया गया है एवं मान. यायालय ारा अपने आदे श
दनांक 08.12.2011 म ी िम ा को दोषी मानकर द डादे श पा रत कया गया
है ।
करण के सम त य का अ ोपरा त, शीलन उपरा त तथा करण म
उपल ध अिभलेख को गत रखते हुए तथा ी िम ा ारा तुत ितवाद
दनांक 05.04.2012 समाधानकारक न होने एवं ी िम ा का मूल पद-उ च
णे ी िश क (अराजप त) होना अिभलेख से िस होने के फल व प एत
ारा संचालनालय के आदे श कमांक-सत/एम/लो/र वा /11/ 363 दनांक
25.02.2012 ारा ता वत पद युित क शा त त काल भाव से
अिधरो पत करते हुये सेवा से पद युत कया जाता है । इ ह िनल बन अविध
म भुगतान क गई जीवन िनवाह भ ा रािश के अित र अ य कोई वेतन
रािश एवं व व क पा ता नह ं होगी ।
12. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that there were
several irregularities committed by the then District Education Officer while
granting appointment to the petitioner and others. Their initial appointments
were only for a period of 3 years, subject to extension; however, the same
was never granted and when the letter was sent for approval to the Collector
for extending their service period, then the Collector observing certain
irregularities took the matter in suo moto proceedings. The argument
advanced by the petitioners that the period of limitation is only 60 days and
beyond the period of 60 days, no suo moto proceedings could have been
drawn against the petitioners. The fact remains that the Full Bench decision
of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra) has considered the aspect
o f suo moto proceedings by the authorities in terms of Section 50 of the
M.P. Land Revenue Code. The reference has been answered pointing out the
fact that the date of knowledge on which the illegalities have been brought to
the notice of the authorities will be the relevant date. As soon as the matter
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
12 WP-860-2018
was forwarded to the learned Collector seeking extension of contractual
period of the petitioner and others, the illegality was brought to his notice
and immediately the suo moto proceedings were initiated by him finding that
no records pertaining to the appointment of the petitioners are available. The
power for revision or initiation of suo moto proceedings to the authorities is
with an intent to remove the illegality, impropriety or irregularity of an order
or proceeding of any of the officers subordinate to him. It may be a case that
such illegality or impropriety may not be in the knowledge of senior
authority for any length of time but as soon as the said illegality came to his
knowledge or he himself came to know regarding the illegality committed by
the subordinate authority then he can take action by initiating suo moto
proceedings against the said illegality. Similar is the case in hand. There is
no counter to the return submitted by the respondents-authorities to point out
that any procedure was followed while granting appointment to the
petitioners. The reason which has been assigned for cancellation of contract
period of the petitioners is that the appointment orders have been passed in
gross violation of the Rules pertaining to the appointment on the post of
Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III coupled with the fact that the record
pertaining to the note sheet written by the Hon'ble Chief Minister relaxing
all the Rules and granting appointment are not available in records. The
entire record pertaining to the appointment of the petitioners on the post of
Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III is not available in the department.
13. Under these circumstances, it can safely be inferred that the
appointment of the petitioners has been granted illegally. Even otherwise, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
13 WP-860-2018
action has been taken against the concerning officer i.e. the then District
Education Officer Rewa who has issued the appointment orders to the
petitioners and accordingly, he was dismissed from service. The record
further indicates that there is no interim relief granted to the petitioners at
any point of time. It was only a contract appointment granted to the
petitioners for a period of 3 years which has never been extended.
14. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioners is purely contractual
and governed by the conditions of the contract duly signed by them.
The rights of the contractual employees are limited and they do not have any
vested right asking for continuation of their contract period. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs S.N. Goyal, reported in
(2008) 8 SCC 92 has considered the rights of a contractual employee and has
held as follows :
"17. Where the relationship of master and servant is purely
contractual, it is well settled that a contract of personal service
is not specifically enforceable, having regard to the bar
contained in Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Even
if the termination of the contract of employment (by dismissal
or otherwise) is found to be illegal or in breach, the remedy of
the employee is only to seek damages and not specific
performance. Courts will neither declare such termination to
be a nullity nor declare that the contract of employment
subsists nor grant the consequential relief of reinstatement.
The three well-recognised exceptions to this rule are:
(i) where a civil servant is removed from service in
contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India (or any law made under Article 309);
(ii) where a workman having the protection of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is wrongly terminated from service; and
(iii) where an employee of a statutory body is terminated from
service in breach or violation of any mandatory provision of a
statute or statutory rules.
There is thus a clear distinction between public employment
governed by statutory rules and private employment governed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
14 WP-860-2018
purely by contract. The test for deciding the nature of relief--
damages or reinstatement with consequential reliefs--is
whether the employment is governed purely by contract or by
a statute or statutory rules. Even where the employer is a
statutory body, where the relationship is purely governed by
contract with no element of statutory governance, the contract
of personal service will not be specifically enforceable.
Conversely, where the employer is a non-statutory body, but
the employment is governed by a statute or statutory rules, a
declaration that the termination is null and void and that the
employee should be reinstated can be granted by courts..."
15. In Yogesh Mahajan vs AIIMS reported in (2018) 3 SCC 218, it is held
as under :
"6. It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to
have his or her contract renewed from time to time. That being
so, we are in agreement with the Central Administrative
Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was unable to
show any statutory or other right to have his contract extended
beyond 30-6-2010. At best, the petitioner could claim that the
authorities concerned should consider extending his contract.
We find that in fact due consideration was given to this and in
spite of a favourable recommendation having been made, the
All India Institute of Medical Sciences did not find it
appropriate or necessary to continue with his services on a
contractual basis. We do not find any arbitrariness in the view
taken by the authorities concerned and therefore reject this
contention of the petitioner.
7. We are also in agreement with the view expressed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the
petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the decision of this
Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 .
There is nothing on record to indicate that the appointment of
the petitioner on a contractual basis or on an ad hoc basis was
made in accordance with any regular procedure or by
following the necessary rules. That being so, no right accrues
in favour of the petitioner for regularisation of his services. ..."
16. Further, in Rajasthan SRTC vs Paramjeet Singh, reported in (2019) 6
SCC 250, it is observed thus :
"8. We find merit in the submission. The terms of the
appointment indicate that the respondent was on a purely
contractual appointment and that the services could be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8118
15 WP-860-2018
dispensed with without notice at any stage."
17. It is trite that the services of an ad hoc employee like a temporary
employee can be terminated in accordance with the terms of appointment
and there is no ban or bar on the employer to replace one ad hoc/temporary
employee by another temporary employee. In the present case, the
appointment of the petitioners was found to be illegal as no records
pertaining to their appointment are available in the department. Furthermore,
they were contract employees, their contract period is over. The authorities
have refused to extend the contract period. Therefore, no relief can be
extended to them.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion and applying the settled principles
of law, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
19. The petitions sans merit and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
