Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hemant Kumar Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 27 April, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023/RJJD/012362]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16247/2022

Dilip Kumar Tailor S/o Shri Sohan Lal Tailor, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Darji Mohalla, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Director (Health Services), Medical And Health Services, Medical And Health Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marga, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8540/2022 Hemant Kumar Yadav S/o Kailash Chandra Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Yadav Mohalla, Sanwad, Mankhand, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Director (Health Services), Medical And Health Services, Medical And Health Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8667/2022 Lalit Kumar Patel S/o Kishan Lal Patel, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kurabad, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

[2023/RJJD/012362] (2 of 6) [CW-16247/2022]

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Director (Health Services), Medical And Health Services, Medical And Health Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Nikhil Dungawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit for Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

27/04/2023

Since the question involved in the all the three writ petitions

is similar, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

For brevity, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.16247/2022 "Dilip Kumar Tailor Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors."

are taken into consideration.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:-

"A] By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondent may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner in pursuance of communication letter dated 22.12.2021 (Annex.-05).

B] By an appropriate writ, order or directions the Respondents may be directed to consider the petitioner to continue upon the post of Computer Operator in the pursuance of communication dated 22.12.2021 (Annex.-05) with consequential benefits."

[2023/RJJD/012362] (3 of 6) [CW-16247/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners

were engaged on the post of Man with Machine (Computer

Operator) in the respondent-Department for a period of six

months. The engagement of the petitioners was extended from

time to time, however, after completion of their period of six

months, further extension has not been granted and their

engagement has been discontinued.

Learned counsel further submits that vide Communication

dated 22.12.2021, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Udaipur

was informed by the Junior Specialist, Community Health Centre,

Sarada, District Udaipur that there is huge workload and,

therefore, he was requested to sanction one additional post of

Computer Operator. He submits that on one hand the engagement

of the petitioners is being discontinued and on the other hand the

Officers of the respondent-Department have expressed their

desire for the sanction of additional post of Computer Operator.

He, therefore, prays that in view of the present facts and

circumstances, the engagement of the petitioners should not be

discontinued and they should be re-engaged by the respondent-

Department for performing the work of Computer Operator.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits

that the petitioners have no right to continue on the post of

Computer Operator as their engagement was only on contractual

basis and it is for the Department to consider whether the

available work in the respondent-Department is required to be

completed with the present workforce available, or the

[2023/RJJD/012362] (4 of 6) [CW-16247/2022]

Department may engage other personnel for performing certain

jobs.

Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the

judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.5178/2022 "Pooja Chaturvedi & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors." decided on 11.04.2022.

Learned counsel further submits that in the event of any

need being felt by the respondent-Department for engaging the

present petitioners, the competent authorities will take a decision

in accordance with law for re-engagement of the petitioners. He

submits that the inter-departmental communication will not create

any right in favour of the petitioners for their re-engagement in

the respondent-Department.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the relevant record of the case.

The petitioners were engaged in the respondent-Department

purely on contract basis for a specific period. It is a settled

proposition of law that the petitioners have no right to continue on

the post of Computer Operator beyond the period of their

engagement as per the terms of conditions entered into between

the petitioners and the respondents. It is absolutely within the

domain of the Department concerned whether to continue the

contractual engagement of the petitioners on the post of

Computer Operator or not.

This Court in the case of Pooja Chaturvedi (supra) has held

as under:-

[2023/RJJD/012362] (5 of 6) [CW-16247/2022]

"The engagement of the petitioners, was through placement agencies and there was no indication made that the same would continue till a particular point of time. The respondents, based on their requirement and coming to the conclusion that as the hiring of the contractual manpower was not permitted by the Government of India after 31.03.2022, has decided to terminate the services of the petitioners and required that the laboratories be manned by sufficient staff from the available staff. The prerogative of the respondents in deciding as to whether to continue with the contractual employees for rendering a particular kind of services or not, cannot be questioned.

The respondents are required to take decision based on several factors and have indicated that once the Government of India has not permitted the hiring of contractual manpower for the purpose, the decision taken by the respondents, cannot be faulted and/or the respondents cannot be directed to continue with contractual employment of the petitioners.

So far as the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that despite the indication made regarding non- hiring of the contractual manpower, after termination of petitioners' engagement, new contractual employees would be engaged, cannot be countenanced at this stage, as once the specific indication has been made that on account of non-permitting of the contractual manpower, existing contractual manpower is being terminated, there does not appear to be any reason for the said apprehension expressed by the petitioners.

In that view of the matter, no case for interference in the petition is made out. The same has no substance and the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed."

Thus, the petitioners cannot ask for a mandamus for re-

engagement as a matter of right.

The inter-departmental communication mentioned in the

preceding para shows the dearth of manpower in the Department

and the Department is in need of more helping hand to meet the

pressure of work.

Since the respondent-Department is in need of a Computer

Operator at its respective centers, therefore, this Court feels the

ends of justice will be met if the present writ petitions are

disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the re-

[2023/RJJD/012362] (6 of 6) [CW-16247/2022]

engagement of the petitioners, in case their services are required

at a particular place of the respondent-Department, in accordance

with law.

Ordered accordingly.

It is made clear that on an appropriate representation being

made, the respondents shall pay the remuneration to the

petitioners if they have performed any work during the course of

their engagement.