Deepak Kumar and Others vs Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan and Others

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—All the matters involved the similar issues and hence were heard together and are being decided simultaneously by this common order.

The matters have come up for consideration on the applications filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, seeking vacation of the ex parte interim orders, whereby the Court had directed that the respondents shall pay to the petitioners same remuneration, which was being paid to him prior to passing of the order dated 4/10/2013 and may not replace him by another contractual employees either directly or through any other placement agency.

In all four petitions, the respective petitioners have sought direction against the respondents to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month towards pay/remuneration as per the circular dated 1/5/2014, and for quashing and set aside the impugned order dated 4/10/2013, and for regularising the services of the petitioners on the post of Computer Operator.

For the sake of convenience, the facts of the writ petition being No. 11726 of 2014 are taken into consideration. It is alleged by the petitioner inter-alia that the State Government had sanctioned the post of Computer Operator, on which the respondents had hired the services of the petitioner on contractual basis on the payment of Rs. 6,000/- per month, vide the order dated 28/9/2010. Accordingly the agreement dated 1/10/2010 was executed, which is on record at Annexure-2. It is further case of the petitioner that the said contract was initially for six months, however same was extended from time to time. It appears that on the basis of the order dated 30/9/2013 passed by the Secretary, State Government, the services of all the Computer Operators working on contractual basis were terminated with effect from 30/9/2013. The said order is produced on record at Annexure-6. It is further case of the petitioner that though the services of the petitioner on contractual basis were terminated, he was working through placement agency with the respondent''s Board and that as per the Circular dated 1/5/2014 (Annex. 11), the petitioner was entitled to the revised charges of Rs. 8,000/- per month in place of Rs. 6000/- per month. It is also the case of the petitioner that till the regular recruitment on the post of Computer Operators is made, the services of the petitioner should be continued or otherwise regularized.

The petition has been resisted by the respondents by filing the reply denying the allegations made in the petition, and further contending inter-alia that no such post of Computer Operators exist with the respondent Board and the question of filling up such posts by regular recruitment does not arise. It is further contended that the services of the petitioner were hired on contractual basis as per the agreement entered into with him, initially for six months, according to which the petitioner had to bring his own computer and provide services on computer to the respondent Board, for which the petitioner was to be paid fixed amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The said agreement was not continued in view of the policy of the State Government as reflected in the order dated 30/9/2013, to hire computer with man, through placement agency. According to the respondents, the Circular dated 1/5/2014 is not applicable to the petitioner, as by the said circular, the Finance Department has revised the rate for hiring the computers with the specification of machine.

The learned counsel Mr. Dilip Sharma for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in discontinuing the services of the petitioner on contractual basis and then hiring the placement agency is bad in law and arbitrary. According to him, the petitioner is working with the respondent Board through placement agency even after the termination of his services. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Rajeshwar Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12448/2009 and Others, decided on 15/9/2011 and also in case of Sarita and 632 Ors v. State of Rajasthan and Ors, 2009(4) WLC (Raj.) 74 in support of his submissions that till the regularly selected candidates are made available, the services of the petitioner should not be terminated. However, the learned counsel Mr. Ravi Agarwal for the respondent has vehemently submitted that there being no sanctioned posts of Computer Operators, the question of recruitment on such posts would not arise, and even otherwise the contract with the petitioner having come to an end, he has no right to be continued, in view of the land mark decision of the Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, .

In the instant case, it appears that initially the services of the petitioner were hired by the respondent Board on contractual basis as per Annexure-1, and the agreement Annexure-2. The said agreement was for a period of six months, and the petitioner had to bring the Computer as per the specification of the respondent Board. It appears that the said period of six months was extended from time to time, till the respondent terminated the same in view of the order dated 4/11/2013, whereby the Board was directed to discontinue the services of Computer with Operator with immediate effect from 30/9/2013. Now, though as per the case of the petitioner, he is working with the respondent Board through placement agency, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is still working as such. The petitioner has also not named the said placement agency/NGO with whom he is allegedly working for the respondent Board. The said placement agency or NGO has also not impleaded the party respondent in the present petition. Under the facts and circumstances, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner as such is working with the respondent Board or his services were hired by the respondent Board through any placement agency or the NGO.

Heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the circular dated 1/5/2014 for revision of rate at Rs. 8000/- per month, however in absence of any document to show that the services of the petitioner with computers have been hired by the respondent Board, no such direction could be granted. The prayer seeking regularisation of the petitioner on the post of Computer Operator is also thoroughly misplaced in view of the fact that there is no such sanctioned post available with the respondent Board, and therefore, the question of the regularization or commencement of recruitment process for the said post does not arise.

The decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also have no application in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as in the instant case, the respondent Board had hired the computers with man, without there being any posts of Computer Operator, and therefore, the question of appointing the other persons as Computer Operators in place of the petitioner does not arise. The services of the petitioner having been engaged purely on contractual basis, the same have come to an end on expiry of the contract and it did not create any right in favour of the petitioner to be continued on contractual basis or for regularization of his services. The learned counsel for the respondent has rightly placed reliance of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (supra) in which it has been categorically held that the contractual appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract.

In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any substance in any of the petitions. The petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed. By this order, the stay application and other pending applications, if any also stand dismissed. A copy of this order be placed other connected petitions.