Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinay Kumar Bishnoi vs Managing Committee., Army Public ... on 26 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 3) [CW-4065/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4065/2021
Vinay Kumar Bishnoi
----Petitioner
Versus
Managing Committee., Army Public School, Bikaner.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Goklani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Jangid
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
26/03/2021
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the
advertisement published in daily newspaper (Annex.3) did not
specify as to whether proposed appointment will be on contract
basis or on regular basis, against the regular sanctioned post. He
asserts that the petitioner who had undergone the selection
process was under a bonafide belief that he has been selected/
appointed on regular basis, whereas the respondent-School has
given appointment to him on contract basis initially for a period of
three years.
2. He also argues that appointment order issued to the
petitioner is arbitrary and contrary to rules.
3. Learned counsel relies upon judgment of Delhi High Court
rendered in case of Salwan Public School Vs. Director of Education
reported in 2018 SCC Online Del 12556 and argues that the fixed
term employment given for a period of three years by the
respondents and its continuation after break of 7 days, for
(2 of 3) [CW-4065/2021]
another three years is a sham and the action of dispensing with
his services is not only illegal, but also violative of petitioner's
fundamental rights.
4. Though this Court finds that the advertisement (Annex.3)
does not mention as to whether the employment is on regular
basis or on contractual basis, but nevertheless, the petitioner has
accepted the appointment order dated 30.03.2013 at his own will
and volition and joined the school in question.
5. The first appointment order dated 30.03.2013 (Annex.1)
clearly shows that the petitioner was accorded appointment for a
period of three years.
6. Upon completion of the said term, after giving artificial break
of 7 days, petitioner was given further appointment on contractual
basis that too for 3 years.
7. A perusal of the appointment order dated 30.03.2013 shows
that the petitioner was placed on grade pay of Rs.4600/- and in
the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 and was held entitled for usual
allowances applicable to other staff.
8. This prima facie gives an indication that the respondent-
School had an intention of appointing the petitioner against
regular sanctioned post and the artificial break of 7 days is a
sham.
9. Admit. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application as well.
10. Notices be given 'dasti' to learned counsel for the petitioner,
if so desired.
11. Since the petitioner's services have been dispensed with in
the year 2019, no ad-interim order at this stage, can be granted
to the petitioner.
(3 of 3) [CW-4065/2021]
12. Petitioner's prayer for grant of interim relief will be
considered once notices are served.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
5-Amar/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
