The State Of Rajasthan vs Sunita Tak W/O Arvind Tak ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1432 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/001498]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

           D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1221/2019

                                          In

                  S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2798/1997

1.       The State of Rajasthan, through the Managing Director,
         Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Saras Sankul, JLN
         Marg, Jaipur.
2.       The Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sehkari Sangh Limited,
         through its Managing Director Near HMT, Beawar Road,
         Ajmer.
3.       The Deputy Manager Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sehkari Sangh
         Limited, Near HMT, Beawar Road, Ajmer.
                                               ----Non-Petitioners/Appellants
                                      Versus
1.       Sunita Tak W/o Arvind Tak, aged about 51 years, R/o
         Near Regional College, Pushkar Road, Kotra, Ajmer.
2.       Maya Chouhan D/o L.N. Chouhan, aged about 49 years,
         R/o UIT, Quarter No. 4, Isai Mohalla, Near Railway
         Hospital, Ajmer.
                                                   ----Petitioenrs/Respondents

For Appellants : Mr. Manu Bhargava Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment

03/02/2023

Heard on admission.

Learned counsel for the State would argue that learned

Single Judge committed gross illegality in holding that the

respondents were appointed on regular basis in substantive

capacity whereas their appointments were only for limited period

on contract basis.

[2023/RJJP/001498] (2 of 2) [SAW-1221/2019]

We find that the order of learned Single Judge proceeds

on the nature of appointment followed by due selection under

Advertisement dated 13.06.1991. Neither in the advertisement,

nor during the process of selection and not even in the order of

appointment, it has been stipulated that the appointments were

being made on contract basis during the life of any project. The

appointment order clearly states that it was regular appointment

after due process of selection on regular basis. The appointment

continued and regular pay scales were granted followed by grant

of increments also. Impugned order of termination passed on

06.05.1997 wrongly declared the regularly selected candidates in

substantive capacity as contract employees.

Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single

Judge does not warrant any interference.

The appeal has no merit and the same is, accordingly,

dismissed.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

MANOJ NARWANI /1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)