Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/413/2021 on 8 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.S. DHANIK
SPECIAL APPEALNO. 413 OF 2021
08TH DECEMBER, 2021
BETWEEN:
Neeraj Kumar Saxena .....Appellant.
And
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellant : Ms. Shruti Joshi.
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Pande ,learned
Standing Counsel for the State.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
The appellant, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Saxena, has
challenged the legality of the order dated 23.09.2021, passed
by a learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2623 of
2019, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the
writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged
the order dated 07.10.2019, passed by the Chief Medical
Officer, District Health Society, National Health Mission, the
respondent No.4, whereby the respondent No.4 had not
recommended the extension of petitioner's contract of
service. The petitioner had also challenged the order dated
19.10.2019, passed by the Mission Director, National Health
Mission, Medical Health Directorate, Dehradun, the
respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner's contract of service
was not extended.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant
claims to have a diploma in Personnel Management and
Industrial Relation from AIIMS, Madras. He further claims to
have completed five days' training course from the Lal
Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (for
short "LBSNAA"), Mussoorie. Prior to joining the State of
Uttarakhand, the petitioner had worked in the Family
Planning Association of India, Kota, Rajasthan. He further
claimed that he had worked as District Project Officer in
Integrated Population Development Project from 1999-2005
in the Medical Health Department, Government of Rajasthan.
Thus, he claims that he has vast experience in the field of
Health Management, and had specialization and professional
qualification in the said field.
4. In the year 2005, the respondent No.2 issued an
advertisement for the post of District Programme Manager of
the then National Rural Health Mission, Udham Singh Nagar.
The appellant applied for the same. By letter dated
30.06.2005, issued by the Executive Director, Uttarakhand
Health and Family Welfare Society, Dehradun, the appellant
was appointed on the post of District Programme Manager on
contractual basis for a period of one year. However, each
year his service tenure was extended after giving a break of
one day. He continued to work from 2005 till 2018. However,
by letter dated 07.10.2019, the respondent No.4 did not
recommend the extension of his contract of service, and by
order dated 19.10.2019, passed by the respondent No.2, his
contract of service was not extended. Since the appellant was
aggrieved by the twin orders dated 07.10.2019 and
19.10.2019, he filed a writ petition before this Court.
However, as mentioned hereinabove, the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal
before this Court.
5. Ms. Shruti Joshi, the learned counsel for the
appellant, submits that the learned Single Judge has ignored
the fact that the assessments of the appellant and others like
him were based on the annual ACRs'.
Secondly, while the contract of the District
Coordinator of PCPNDT was extended, the contract of service
of the appellant was not extended. Thus, a hostile
discrimination has been practiced against the appellant by
implementing a policy of "pick and choose". Since the learned
Single Judge has ignored these facts, the impugned order
deserves to be set-aside by this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and
perused the impugned order.
7. It is, indeed, trite to state that while considering
the issue of extension of contractual employment, the
employer not only considers the ACR of the employee, but
also examines the suitability of an employee before his tenure
of service can be extended for a further period.
8. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly
reveals that in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent
No.2, it was clearly stated that the appellant's performance
was not up to mark. According to Annexure No.2 of the
counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, the respondent
No.3 had given twenty-one instances of lapses on the part of
the appellant; yet, the appellant did not improve his
performance. Therefore, the learned counsel is not justified in
claiming that the assessment of an employee work is based
entirely on his ACR.
9. The learned Single Judge has noticed the fact that
the responsibilities of the District Coordinator, PCPNDT are
not equivalent to the responsibilities entrusted to the District
Programme Manager. Therefore, even if the contract of the
District Coordinator, PCPNDT was extended, it would not
tantamount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. For, both the appellant and the District Coordinator,
PCPNDT stand on two different footing. Therefore, the said
contention was not only adjudicated by the learned Single
Judge, but was also rejected by the learned Single Judge.
10. In the case of State of Karnataka & others v.
Uma Devi (3) & others, [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has clearly opined that even if the employee
continues to work for long years, he cannot claim that he has
a legitimate expectation of being continued either on
contractual basis, or on regular basis. For, from the very first
day of his appointment, the employee is well-aware of the
fact that his employment is temporary; a long term
employment does not bestow either a right to continue in
service, or a right to be regularized.
11. In the present case, condition No.5 of the terms of
contract clearly stipulated that "the appointment of the said
DPM is purely on a contract basis and that he/she would not
be entitled to any claims, rights, interest or further benefits in
terms of regularization or consideration of further
appointment to the said post or any other post under the
society". (Emphasis added). Therefore, the appellant cannot
claim that he has a right of consideration for further
appointment only on the basis that he has worked with the
respondents since 2005.
12. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not
find any merit in this appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed.
(RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.)
(N.S. DHANIK, J.)
Dated: 08thDecember, 2021
NISHANT
