Ramesh Chand Jatav vs State and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Class IV on 22.06.1999 on contract basis in the office of respondents i.e. Rajasthan Residential Educational Institution Society. However, he was served with notice dated 03.04.2002 of one month with regard to his disengagement, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition No. 2745 of 2002. It appears that during pendency of writ petition, there was an interim stay, as such, he was allowed to continue but finally writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 16.01.2009 and after dismissal of writ petition, order has been passed by the respondents dis-engaging the services of the petitioner and terminating his contract vide order Ann.4 dated 07.10.2009.

Counsel for petitioner submits that post held by the petitioner is lying vacant and in such circumstances, his contract of service could not have been terminated. Counsel further submits that contractual employee cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee and this practice has been deprecated by this Court. Counsel further submits that judgment on which this Court placed reliance while rejecting Writ Petition No. 2854 of 2002, Akhilesh Kumar v. State and Ors., decided on 04.11.2008 there is a further direction that representation, if made, may be considered and decided by the respondents within three months in accordance with law and in such circumstances, according to him, order impugned Ann.4 passed by respondents terminating his services, is bad in law.

In opinion of this Court, submission made is without merit for the reason that if petitioner''s services were intended to be terminated by the respondents by a notice being served way back on 03.04.2002, but because of interim stay passed by this Court in the writ petition earlier preferred, it could not have been carried out but after writ petition was finally dismissed on 16.01.2009, the respondents have now passed order in compliance of the earlier notice dated 02.05.2002 terminating his services vide order Ann.4 dated 07.10.2009 and that is certainly after rejection of the writ petition.

So far as availability of posts are concerned, if at all it is available that will not confer any right in favour of the petitioner to continue on the post which he held prior to notice in May, 2002 being served upon him and apart from it, he being employee appointed purely on contract basis, no right could otherwise be conferred which could be enforced by Court of law.

As regards judgment on which reliance has been placed in Akhilesh Kumar v. State and Ors. (Supra), in the facts of the case came before this Court, it was observed that if representation is made, may be duly considered. This Court has not considered appropriate to grant opportunity to the petitioner of making representation and apart from it, it was case of notice being served for terminating his services on 03.04.2002 and after rejection of the writ petition, respondents were certainly justified in taking their final action in compliance of notice for dispensing with services served and passed order impugned dated 07.10.2009.

As regards last submission made in regard to replacement of contractual employee through another set of contractual employee, in opinion of this Court, has no substance for the reason that there is no material on record by which this Court could infer that respondents intend to engage another employee in the capacity the petitioner had worked.

Consequently, this Court find no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed.