Yuvraj Dewangan vs Chief Executive Officer and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby the period of contract appointment of the petitioner has not been extended and his services has come to an end and further, a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to his former post with full back-wages and consequential relief. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Programme ''Officer on contract basis by order dated 23.02.2008 (Annexure P/3) and posted at Kuokonda. Dantewada. The appointment was uptil 31st December, 2008. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 16.03.2009 (Annexure P/5) by the respondent No. 1 with respect to his absence from the office. Reply to the said notice was filed whereupon the matter was dropped. The petitioner, at earlier point of time had made a complaint against the Chief Executive Officer (for short the C.E.O.), Janpad Panchayat, Simga with regard to irregularities committed by him, to the C.E.O., Jila Panchayat, as well as the Collector, Raipur (Annexure P/9 to P/11). Thus, the petitioner, by order dated 06.02.2010 was transferred from Janpad Panchayat, Simga to Abhanpur.

Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have extended the term of appointment uptil 28.02.2013 by order dated 05.03.2010 (Annexure P/15) issued by the C.E.O., Jila Panchayat, Raipur. Thereafter, the C.E.O. Abhanpur, by memo dated 08.03.2010 has recommended the name of the petitioner, alongwith five other persons for extending their services on contract basis till 28.02.2011. However, vide the impugned order dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure P/1) which was communicated to the petitioner vide memo dated 17.6.2010 (Annexure P/2) the services of the petitioner has been terminated in an illegal and arbitrary manner. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed on account of making complaint by the petitioner against the C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat, Simga on earlier occasion.

Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 2 to 4 submits that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order dated 14.06.2010 as the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis and on the basis of the assessment report dated 11.05.2010 (Annexure R/1), the respondent authorities have decided not to extend the services of the petitioner, which is strictly in accordance with the rules.

None appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1. However, the return filed by the State/respondent No. 2 to 4 has been adopted by the respondent No. 1.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

The contention of the petitioner that the C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur has recommended the name of the petitioner for extension of his period on contract basis, does not merit acceptance as later on, vide the memo dated 11.05.2010 (Annexure R/1), the same officer has not found the petitioner fit for continuing his service on contract basis for the period till 28.02.2011. Further, the allegation of mala fide is a mere selfsame statement, and not supported by any documents.

This Court, in C.P. Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others W.P. (S) No. 3437 of 2010 decided on 05.01.2011, has held that it is for the employer to accept the recommendation made by an officer, particularly when admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis.

P. Ramnatha Aiyar''s Advanced Law Lexicon-3rd Edition defines the word ''recommendation'' as advise, counsel or opinion.

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in Naraindas Indurkhya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, , while considering the distinction between prescription and recommendation in case of text book observed as under:

It may be noted that there is a basic distinction between recommendation and prescription of a text book. When a text book is prescribed by an appropriate authority having legal power to do so, it has to be followed by the schools. Prescription of a text book carries with it a binding obligation to follow the text book. There is no such obligation when a text book is merely recommended. Recommendation has merely a persuasive effect, it being open to the schools to accept the recommendation or to reject it as they think fit.

In New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia and Another, , with regard to guidelines the Supreme Court observed as under:

Issuance of such guidelines, however, is not being controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the tenant....

Thus, the petitioner has not acquired any right on the basis of the recommendation (Annexure P/16) made by the authority for continuation in the service as at the second point of time, the same authority has not found the petitioner fit to be continued in service vide the memo dated 11.05.2010 (Annexure R/1). No order extending service of the petitioner on contract was passed, as contended by the petitioner. This Court may not direct the respondent authorities to accept or to reject a particular recommendation. It is for the State authorities to take decision, applying their own mind, which may be in interest of the State.

Even otherwise, appointment on contract basis does not confer any right on the petitioner for continuation, absorption or regularization. The Supreme Court, in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, , has observed that any appointment dehors the constitutional scheme of employment is illegal and not entitled to reinstatement or regularisation in the service. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in this case and the petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.