Aman Ullah Shah & Ors vs State And Ors

Petitioners have been engaged as Lecturers on academic arrangement in 10+2 Schools for the sessions 2018-19 by the orders of the Chief Education Officer, Doda in the disciplines of Political Science, Hindi, Persian, Botany Education, English, Physics, Zoology, Chemistry, Economics. They have sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to replace/substitute the writ petitioners by any set of contractual or temporary appointee.

Petitioners submit that they were engaged on academic arrangement as 10+2 Lecuturers and are sought to be replaced by the respondents by other contractual appointees or by transferring regularly recruited Lecturers which will adversely affect their rights. They further submit that if they are not allowed to continue to work as Lecturers on contractual basis on academic arrangement.

It is also submitted that since they have been working continuously uninterruptedly against clear vacancies of the post of Lecturers in their respective disciplines in the different Government Higher Secondary Schools pursuant to their appointment and, as such, their replacement or substitution by other contractual lecturers would be arbitrary, unjust, irrational and contrary to the provisions of Article-14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. They seek their continuation as Lecturer in 10+2 schools on the ground that they have qualified to be engaged as Lecturers through the recruitment process and their continuation in the interest of students, who are studying in the particular school, is required.

The engagement orders of the petitioners, as annexed with petition, state that:-

'As approved by Selection Committee constituted for the purpose, the following Post Graduate candidates are hereby engaged temporarily in academic arrangement against the available vacancies of Lecturers in 10+2 Schools on consolidate wages

@ Rs.7,000/- per month for a period of 59 days or till the posts are filled up by the DPC/PSC or by transfer whichever is earlier.'

In terms of Para No.05 of the said order of engagement, it was also stipulated as under :-

'5. An affidavit (duly attested by the Judicial Magistrate) to the effect that he/she will not claim for permanent absorption in any manner and his/her services shall be deemed terminated if a permanent Lecturer is appointed by the PSC/DPC or by the transfer whichever is earlier without any further notice. The candidate shall also give an undertaking that he/she will not simultaneously work in any other Department either as permanent or temporary employee.

Thus, the petitioners have accepted their engagement on temporary basis and have joined on the said post on fulfilling certain conditions. The petitioners have also given an affidavit that they will not claim any permanent job or service based on this engagement. These engagements of the petitioners were only for the Sessions 2018-19, and fresh applications would be invited and new merit list based on applications of the candidates, who have applied afresh, will be considered for the sessions 2018-19 having accepted this condition, the petitioners cannot now turn around and challenge the same as being arbitrary, unjust, irrational and contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16.

Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners, that they may not be replaced or substituted or transferred to another institution till their cases for confirmation/regularization to the post of Lecturer, is untenable in view of the fact that they have accepted engagement on temporary basis for session 2018-19, and for the session 2019-20, fresh applications would be invited and new merit list prepared and they will not claim any permanent job on the basis of this engagement. More so, their orders of engagement itself state that they will be appointed initially for a period of 59 days which can be extended to the requirement of the department/school by giving two days break or till the post is filled up on regular basis by DPC/PSC or by transfer whichever is earlier. Therefore, there is no right of the petitioners to continue beyond the period of 59 days. They can continue only if the department or school requires their services.

This has also been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra & ors. v. Anita & anr. reported as AIR 2016 Supreme Court 3333 has held as under:-

The above terms of the agreement further reiterate the stand of the State that the appointments were purely contractual and that the respondents shall not be entitled to claim any right or interest of permanent service in the government. The appointments of respondents were made initially for eleven months but were renewed twice and after serving the maximum contractual period, the services of the respondents came to an end and the Government initiated a fresh process of selection. Conditions of respondents' engagement is governed by the terms of agreement. After having accepted contractual appointment, the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their

appointment. Furthermore, respondents are not precluded from applying for the said posts afresh subject to the satisfaction of other eligibility criteria."

Thus, the petitioners having applied for the posts of Lecturer for temporary engagement on academic basis and having accepted the appointment with all its conditions and being a beneficiary of the selection process cannot now turn around and challenge the same as being arbitrary and violative of Article-14 & 16 of the Constitution. This has also been observed by this Hon'ble Court in 2006 (1) SLJ 308 which stated that a person appointed on contractual basis has no right to seek continuance in service after expiry of the period of contract even if the order of contract or contractual appointment envisages that appointment will continue till appointment is made on regular basis. The petitioners having participated in the selection process and being appointed in accordance with their merit cannot deny this opportunity to the other candidates, who would become eligible for the said post and would have opportunity of competing for the said post in accordance with the merit. Thus, all the candidates, who are eligible and who seek, to be appointed as Lecturer in 10+2 would have equal right of competing for the said post as and when they are advertised. Thus, the only right of the petitioners is that they can apply and participate pursuant to any fresh selection process which is initiated for the next academic session by the respondents.

This view also finds force in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & ors. Vs. Brahma Dutt Tripathi, AIR 2006 SC 3244 and this view has already been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State Of Karnataka and ors. vs Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, by holding that temporary employees, such employees, do not have any right to regular or public employment further temporary, contractual, causal, ad hoc or daily wage, public employment must be deemed to be accepted by the employee concerned fully knowing the nature of it and consequences following from it.

In view of the aforesaid and the fact that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for indulgence by this Court, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

IA also stands dismissed as such.