Mohammad Nadeem S/O Mohammad Saddik vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 2399 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

Mohammad Nadeem S/O Mohammad Saddik vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 April, 2024

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Bhuwan Goyal

  [2024:RJ-JP:15296-DB]

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 231/2024
                                             In
                    S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1421/2024

   Mohammad Nadeem S/o Mohammad Saddik, Aged About 26
   Years, R/o Chobdari Ki Masjid Ke Pas, Naya Shahar, Kishangarh,
   Ajmer-305802.
                                                                          ----Appellant
                                          Versus
   1.      State of Rajasthan, through The Secretary, Department of
           Local Bodies, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
   2.      The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Kishangarh,
           Ajmer.
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Appellant : Mr Rahul Kmawar Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Judgment

02/04/2024

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 29.02.2024 passed

by the learned Single Judge whereby writ petition filed by the

appellant has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even

though there is a continuing need, appellant's services have been

terminated.

3. We find that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ

petition holding that the appellant is a contractual employee, taking

into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the cases of K.K. Suresh & Another Vs. Food Corporation of

India, AIR 2018 SC 3905 and Ganesh Digamber

[2024:RJ-JP:15296-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-231/2024]

Jhambhrundkar & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others,

Special Leave to Appeal No. 2543/2023.

4. The aforesaid decisions settled the legal position that a

contractual employee does not have any right to continue in

service. A contractual employee cannot seek issuance of a

mandamus that he should be continued in service. However, at the

same time, in the view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Manish Gupta & Another Etc. Etc. Vs.

President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Others Etc. Etc. (Civil

Appeal Nos. 3084-3088 of 2022 decided on 21.04.2022), if

there is a continuing need, instead of substitution, it would be

proper that the person may be continued as contractual employee

without creating any right to seek regularisation. In the case of

Manish Gupta & Another Etc. Etc. Vs. President, Jan

Bhagidari Samiti & Others Etc. Etc. (supra), on facts, it was

found that an advertisement was issued for regular appointment.

5. In the present case, services of the appellant have been

brought to an end. If the respondents intend services on the post,

appellant's candidature may be considered in future. However, in

case the respondents do not have any need, this Court cannot issue

any mandamus to continue services of the appellant.

6. Subject to the aforesaid observation that in case the

respondents need manning of the post, the appellant may be

considered, present appeal is disposed off.

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ

MANOJ NARWANI /9

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)