Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chandan Jindal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 February, 2023
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Nupur Bhati
[2023/RJJD/003818]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 10/2023
Chandan Jindal S/o Amritpal Jindal, Aged About 29 Years, Ward
No. 9, Near Agarwal Dharmshala Pili Banga Hanumangarh,
District Hanumangarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Hanumangarh.
4. The District Reproductive And Child Health Officer,
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singadiya, on V.C.
Mr. Surendra Bairua.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Judgment
03/02/2023
1. This Civil Special Appeal has been preferred claiming for the
following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may
kindly be allowed and order dated 15.11.2022 passed by learned
single judge, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the writ
petition filed by the appellant/petitioner may kindly be allowed as
prayed for.
Cost of the appeal may also be awarded in favour of the
appellant-petitioner from the respondents."
2. The short issue that arises for the consideration of this Court
is whether an employee appointed on urgent and temporary basis
[2023/RJJD/003818] (2 of 3) [SAW-10/2023]
could be replaced by a regularly appointed employee only through
direct recruitment, and not by way of transfer.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the order dated
15.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ
petition was dismissed on the ground that although the
employment of the petitioner was on urgent temporary basis; the
same was illegally put to an end by the respondent-authorities and
that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that vide
order, dated 01.04.2022, at Annex-3, the services of persons
employed on urgent and temporary basis were extended up till
31.03.2023, or until regularly selected candidates were made
available.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
service of the present appellant was incorrectly terminated on
account of transfer/posting of medical officer-Dr. Rohit Suman at
PHC, Daulawali, as the same would not come within the purview of
a regular appointment, as it was not a fresh appointment.
5. Heard. Perused the record of the case.
6. At the outset, this Court observes that it is not the
contention of the appellant that medical officer-Dr. Rohit Suman,
whose transfer/posting to PHC, Daultawali resulted in the
termination of the services of the appellant, is not a candidate
who was appointed by way of regular selection process. And upon
being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner could not refute
the same.
7. This Court also observes that the position of law with respect
to appointment of regular employees in place of contractual
employees is well settled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
[2023/RJJD/003818] (3 of 3) [SAW-10/2023]
Manish Gupta & Anr. Etc. Etc. v. President, Jan Bhagidari
Samiti & Ors. Etc. Etc. Civil Appeal Nos. 3084-3088/2022
has made the following observations in this regard;
"12. ... It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc
employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he
can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly
appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. Reliance in
this respect can be placed on the judgment of this Court in the
case of Rattan Lal and others vs. State of Haryana and others and
on the order of this Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs.
State of Punjab and others"
7.1 And in the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed
that the writ petitioners-appellants therein, being ad hoc
contractual employees, would be entitled to continue on their
respective posts till they are replaced by regularly selected
candidates.
8. This Court therefore observes that the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant; that regular appointment would mean only
a fresh recruitment and that the same could not be by way of
transfer, is without force.
9. In light of the above observations, this Court finds that the
present appeal is without merit, and is hereby dismissed.
Accordingly, the stay application also stands dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
15-Sanjay/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
