Dr. Nadeem Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

P. Sam Koshy, J

The relief sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to quash the advertisement which has been issued by the respondents on

08.08.2018.

The facts of the case is that the petitioner has been appointed for the first time under the respondent No.2 on 14.08.2017. The order of appointment

clearly reflects that the appointment was issued for a period of one year or till the regular appointment in the department is made. It was also clearly

reflected that the appointment was contractual in nature and his service conditions would be governed by the rules framed for contractual employee.

The said tenure of the petitioner came to an end on 14.08.2018. Meanwhile, the respondent No.2 have issued an advertisement dated 08.08.2018 for

filling up of the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Bio Technology by way of guest faculty. It is this that the petitioner was aggrieved of.

The petitioner submits that since the petitioner was in contractual employment and his services were not in any manner unsatisfactory, the

respondents should have, in all fairness, continued the services of the petitioner till the regular appointment is made by the respondents. By issuance of

advertisement the respondents have literally planned to substitute one set of contract employee by another set of contract employee which may not be

permissible. Referring to order of appointment he submits that the services of the petitioner would be till a regular appointment would be made, which

means that since the services of the petitioner was contractual, the contract should get continued/renewed till a regular appointment is made by the

respondent.

Counsel for the respondents however opposing the petition submits that it is a case where the respondents have now in the light of the government

instructions dated 27.07.2018 have an initiated steps for filling up of the post of Assistant Professor which are lying vacant in the department by way

of guest faculty till the alternate regular appointment is made. The petitioner as such may not have indefeasible right for the reason that the services of

the petitioner was substantially for a period of one year which stood culminated on 14.08.2018 and till then the petitioner has discharged his duties

uninterruptedly and beyond which the petitioner does not have any claim.

It was further contention of the respondents that petitioner is also at liberty to participate in the recruitment process now initiated for filling up of the

post by way of guest faculty.

Having considered the rival contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records true it reflects that the petitioner has been given

contractual employment in the previous academic session after undergoing recruitment process in accordance with rules, indisputably the appointment

was substantially for a period of one year. Beyond a period of one year, it is always the discretion of the employer to decide whether to continue or

discontinue the services of a contract employee. It is a case of the respondents that they are filling up the said post by way of guest faculty. The

petitioner also has liberty to participate in the said recruitment process. The action on the part of the respondents cannot be said to be in any manner

arbitrary nor can it be said to be illegal for the reason that ultimately the status of the petitioner was substantially that of a contractual Assistant

Professor and the contract period has already come to an end.

If we further go deep in the matter, the petitioner as on date is not in the rolls of the respondents for claiming continuity in service. The contract

period of the petitioner came to an end on 14.08.2018 and beyond that the petitioner is not on the rolls of the respondents and that means the services

of the petitioner stands discontinued after 14.08.2018 and after that the status of the petitioner would be similar to any other aspirant who would be

trying for employment with the respondents on the advertisement which has been issued.

Given the aforesaid facts this court is of the opinion that no strong case is made out by the petitioner calling for an interference with the impugned

advertisement dated 08.08.2018. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.

Needless to mention that the reluctance of this court in not entertaining this petition would not preclude the right of the petitioner in participating in

the advertisement dated 08.08.2018. In case, if the petitioner applies, the respondents may consider his case giving due weightage to his past

experience.