Rajasthan High Court
Deshraj Sharma S/O Shri Janak ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16205/2019
Deshraj Sharma S/o Shri Janak Kumar Sharma, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Bhojawas, Tehsil Kotputli District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Department Of Medical And Health, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Alwar.
4. Community Health Center, Bansur District Alwar.
5. Vinayak Labour Supply And Main Power Services, Scheme
No. 10, Vivek Vihar Alwar Through Manager.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia for Dr. V.B.
Sharma, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
25/01/2021
Learned counsel for the petitioner in his writ petition has
prayed as under:-
"a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in
the nature thereof the oral termination of the
petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and
the petitioners as Lab Technician on contract basis
may kindly be reinstated with all consequential
benefits.
b) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper be also passed in favour of the
Petitioner."
(2 of 4) [CW-16205/2019]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been working as Lab Assistant on contract basis since 2013.
Posts of Lab Assistant are lying vacant. The respondents instead of
continuing the petitioner have now taken recourse to appoint the
Lab Assistant through fresh placement agency. Thus, another set
of contractual employees has replaced the petitioner who has been
working for almost six years.
Learned counsel relies on the order passed by this Court in
case of Chanchal Khurana & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan
& Ors., SBCWP No.13206/2019 on 21.8.2019 wherein this
Court after examining the presidential law laid down by this Court
as well as by the Supreme Court, laid down as under:-
"7.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the material available on record as well as
the precedent law cited, this Court is of the opinion
that though the petitioners are contractual
employees but they have been selected on the
basis of their eligibility and merit and once they are
selected and have attained reasonable experience
of working with the respondent-State, then such
persons tend to become asset to the State by virtue
of the experience gained by them. This position is
particularly clear in the places where competitive
selection is not held and simply contractual
appointments are made on the basis of the
minimum eligibility and qualification. The
competitive selection is excluded from such
protection as in this more qualitative candidate
replaces the contractual candidate already working.
8.This Court finds that the petitioners, who have
been working with the respondents, if substituted
for no good reasons, then it shall be a decision
which shall not only be unreasonable but shall also
be unfair and irrational. The investment of time and
energy in gaining the experience no doubt creates a
sedimentation in favour of the contractual
employees to the extent that they should not be
substituted by another set of contractual employees
in normal circumstances. It is needless to say that
in academic field or in any field of expertise where
the competitive contractual employees are
engaged, the respondents have a right to engage a
more competitive person in place of the lesser
competitive person but this is not the case in the
(3 of 4) [CW-16205/2019]
present facts where the petitioners are discharging
normally Class III/IV type of services. The
experience gained by the petitioners entitles them
to continue with the job of the respondents and the
respondents shall be entitled to bring to an end the
services of the petitioners in case and in the
circumstances (i) where the petitioners' conduct is
such which is in violation of the contractual
conditions or is not up to the mark; or (ii) the
regularly selected employees are available with the
respondents or (iii) the work/scheme/project/duties
assigned to the petitioners are no longer in
continuance and the work itself is no longer
required.
9.Except for the aforesaid reasons, any other
reason simply with a view to substitute the
petitioners with other similarly situated candidates,
particularly contractual employees shall be nothing
but a case of sheer arbitrariness, unreasonableness
and unfairness.
10.Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. The
respondents are directed not to substitute the
petitioners with another set of contractual
employees except for the aforesaid reasons. It is
needless to say that if work is not available with the
respondents is a reason for termination of the
services of the petitioners at any point of time, then
the principle of last come first go shall be adopted.
It is made clear that the due salary of the
petitioners shall be paid within a period of thirty
days from today."
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
Litigation Committee has decided to challenge the said order
before the Division Bench.
This Court finds that the law as laid down by the Coordinate
Bench is in consonance with the law laid down by the Division
Bench in case of Mooli Devi Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan at
Principal Seat, Jodhpur reported in 2010 (4) WLC 334. The
Division Bench judgment thus covers the controversy and it has
already attained finality.
In view thereof, this Court need not further elaborate the
issue and reiterates the view already taken hereinabove. The
action of the respondents in dispensing with the services of the
(4 of 4) [CW-16205/2019]
petitioner working on contract basis and appointing another set of
contractual employees has held to be unjustified and illegal. The
petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the post of Lab Assistant
on contract basis till regularly selected candidates are made
available or Scheme itself stands abolished. The exercise shall be
conducted within a period of 15 days from the date of submission
of certified copy of this order.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
NITIN /134
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
