Suresh Kumar Son Of Shri Gordhan ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2779 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2779 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 1 April, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Suresh Kumar Son Of Shri Gordhan ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 1 April, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14019/2021

Suresh Kumar Son Of Shri Gordhan Ram, Aged About 39 Years,
Resident Of Berla, Tehsil Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
       Medical And Health Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
       (Raj.)
2.     Joint Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthay
       Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur Zone Jaipur
3.     Member Secretary, Rajasthan Medical Relief Society,
       Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
4.     Chief Medical And Health And Officer, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
5.     Medical Officer In-Charge, Community Health Centre,
       Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
6.     Sandeep       Kumar,        Assistant        Assistant      Radiographer,
       Community Health Centre, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu
       (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Bairwa.

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

01/04/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Writ petition and call for this entire record relating to the case and after examine the same-

                                          (2 of 4)                  [CW-14019/2021]


            (i)    By issuing an appropriate writ, order

or direction in the nature thereof and thereby quashed and set aside the termination order No.379 dated 23.11.2021 in the larger interest of justice.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the respondents to continue the petitioner for the post of Assistant Radiographer or any other suitable post and pay the regular pay scale or minimum wages to petitioner.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the respondents to pay the out standing remuneration/payment of petitioner which is legally due against the respondents.

(iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the respondents to not taken any prejudice action against the petitioner on account of filing the instance writ petition.

(v) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed

on the post of Assistant Radiographer in the office of respondents

purely on contract basis and since then he has been continuing in

service on his period of contract being extended on mutual

consent from time to time. However, vide order dated 23.11.2021

when services of the petitioner were terminated by the

respondents he approached this Court by filing the present writ

petition. As evident from the condition No.11 of the contract

agreement, the services of the contractual employee can continue

only upto the period till the regularly selected candidates are

made available and in light of the said condition, the petitioner

being contract employee, his services have been terminated by

the respondents vide order dated 23.11.2021, as the regularly

selected candidate joined service.

(3 of 4) [CW-14019/2021]

Counsel for the petitioner submits that a number of posts are

still lying vacant, hence, termination of the service of the

petitioner is arbitrary, therefore, prayed that the order passed by

the respondents dated 23.11.2021 be set aside.

In support of his contention counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court at

Principal seat Jodhpur in the matter of 'Ashish Sharma Vs. The

State of Rajasthan & Ors.' (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.7471/2019) decided on 21.08.2019.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'State of

Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Anita and Ors.', reported in (2016)

8 Supreme Court Cases 293, in para No.16, has held as under:-

"16. The above terms of the agreement further reiterate the stand of the State that the appointments were purely contractual and that the Respondents shall not be entitled to claim any right or interest of permanent service in the government. The appointments of Respondents were made initially for eleven months but were renewed twice and after serving the maximum contractual period, the services of the Respondents came to an end and the Government initiated a fresh process of selection. Conditions of Respondents' engagement is governed by the terms of agreement. After having accepted contractual appointment, the Respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment. Furthermore, Respondents are not precluded from applying for the said posts afresh subject to the satisfaction of other eligibility criteria."

Admittedly, the petitioner is a contractual employee and

according to the condition No.11 of the contract agreement, the

services of the contractual employee can continue upto the period

(4 of 4) [CW-14019/2021]

till the regularly selected candidates are made available in the

department and as the regularly selected candidates already

joined service, the services of the petitioner being purely

contractual came to an end automatically.

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly regularly selected candidate

already joined service as Assistant Radiographer, as such services

of the petitioner being contractual automatically came to an end;