Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxman Kumar Sharma vs Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank on 13 October, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11941/2020
Laxman Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ram Chandra Sharma, Aged
About 41 Years, Resident Of Near Charbhuja Mandir Village
Nandoli, Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Through Its General
Manager, Tulsi Tower 9Th B Road Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
2. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Through Its Branch
Manager, Kankroli, Dist. Rajsamand.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11735/2020
Narendra Dana S/o Sh. Ranjeet Dana, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Near Railway Fatak, Sirohi Road, Pindwara, District Sirohi (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Through Its Chief Manager
Department Of Financial Inclusion Tulsi Tower, 09Th B Road
Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.L. Jat
Mr. Vivek Shrimali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Tiwari for Mr. B.L. Tiwari
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
13/10/2022
The present matters come upon applications under Article
226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the interim
orders dated 10.11.2020 and 05.11.2020 respectively whereby
the effect and operation of the order dated 07.10.2020 was stayed
and it was directed that the petitioners shall not be replaced by
another set of contractual employees.
(2 of 3) [CW-11941/2020]
The case of the respondents is that the petitioners have been
appointed on totally contractual basis for a specific period of one
year which was extendable to a maximum period of one year
further. The said period having come to an end, the petitioners do
not have any right to be continued on the said contractual post
but the respondent Bank is under an obligation to continue them
because of the interim orders dated 10.11.2020 and 05.11.2020
and the same therefore deserve to be vacated.
Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the
judgment passed in the case of Dr. Manisha Jain & Ors. Vs. Jai
Narain Vyas University & Anr. {S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.11386/2017} decided on 20.01.2021 and the Division Bench
judgment passed in the case of State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Shale
Mohd. Khan {D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.134/2001}
decided on 07.10.2004.
Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
there is no dispute regarding the contractual engagement of the
petitioners but the whole intention of the respondent Bank is to
replace them by another set of contractual employee which fact is
clear from the advertisement placed on record as Annexure-3 and
Annexure-6 respectively whereby the applications for contractual
engagements on the post of FCL Co-ordinator (the post on which
the petitioners are working) have been invited. Learned counsel
submitted that it is therefore evident that the work requirement
still exists and the whole approach of respondent Bank in
replacing the petitioners with some retired employee of the Bank
cannot be upheld in view of the judgment passed in the case of
Bajrang Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan {S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.3873/2020} decided on 06.08.2020. Learned counsel
(3 of 3) [CW-11941/2020]
further relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court
passed in the case of Chairman (The), Army Public School &
Anr. Vs. Anamika Saxena reported in 2021 (1) RLW 227
(Raj.).
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the applications
under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India.
As held in the case of Anamika Saxena (supra), it is a
settled proposition of law that one set of contractual employees
cannot be replaced by another. The only exception to the said
principle is that a regular recruitment process is undertaken by
the department or the authorities concerned.
Admittedly, in the present matter, fresh applications for the
post of FCL Co-ordinator have been invited by the respondent
Bank and no process for regular recruitment on the said post has
been sought to be initiated. Therefore, in view of the settled
proposition of law, the petitioners cannot be replaced by another
set of contractual employee and hence, this Court does not find
any ground to interfere with the interim orders dated 10.11.2020
and 05.11.2020.
The applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of
India are therefore rejected. Interim orders dated 10.11.2020 in
S.B.C.W.P. No.11941/2020 and 05.11.2020 in S.B.C.W.P.
No.11735/2020 are made absolute.
The stay petitions stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
102-103/AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
