Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 1000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT KALABURAGI
E.S. Indiresh, J.
Annapurna Uppin - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 202958/2018 (S-RES)
Decided On : 10-02-2022
P. Vilaskumar, Senior Counsel, P. Nitesh Vilas Kumar, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Shivakumar R. Tengli, AGA and Venkatesh C. Mallabadi, Advocate, for the Respondents
One temporary employee cannot be replaced or substituted by another temporary employee.
Headnote:
Temporary Employee - Employment - The court held that one temporary employee cannot be replaced or substituted by another temporary employee, citing the principle established by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The respondent-authorities were directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner till regular appointment is made in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a temporary Training Co-ordinator, challenged a notification inviting applications for the same position, claiming that she cannot be replaced by another temporary employee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that one temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee and directed the respondent-authorities not to take coercive steps against the petitioner till regular appointment is made.
Issues: The issue involved was whether a temporary employee can be replaced/substituted by another temporary employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cited the principle established by the Hon'ble Apex Court that one temporary employee cannot be replaced or substituted by another temporary employee.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, observing that the petitioner cannot be replaced by another temporary employee. The respondent-authority was directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner till regular appointment is made in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
E.S. Indiresh, J. - In this writ petition, petitioner has assailed the Notification dated 25.08.2018 issued by the second respondent, inviting applications for the post of Training Co-ordinators (HRD).
2. Petitioner claims to be appointed as State Training Co-ordinator (HRD) in the office of respondent No. 3, after participation in the interview on 05.04.2010. It is further stated that the petitioner has executed undertaking before respondent No. 3 and her appointment is against permanent vacancy and the same is essential insofar as sanitation and cleanliness programme and project launched by the respondent-authorities. The respondent-authorities continued the services of the petitioner as a temporary employee instead of appointing her as permanent employee. In the meanwhile, petitioner requested the respondent-authorities for regularization of her services. However, the respondent-authorities have issued notification dated 25.08.2018 (Annexure-A) inviting applications from the eligible candidates for various posts including Training Co-ordinators. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
3. Sri P. Vilaskumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Nitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned notification issued by the respondent-authorities is contrary to law as the respondent-authorities are not allowed to invite new applications from the candidates for the post of temporary Training Co-ordinator in the place of petitioner. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.
4. Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent-authorities sought to justify the impugned notification at Annexure-A and submitted that though the impugned notification is issued, the respondent-authorities have not resorted to disturb the petitioner at any point of time and therefore, by reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections, sought to justify the impugned action.
5. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the issue involved in this writ petition is,
Whether a temporary employee be replaced/substituted by another temporary employee?
6. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been appointed as Temporary Training Co-ordinator pursuant to the Notification dated 25.08.2018 and she has been continued to work on contractual obligation. Subsequently, the respondent-authorities have issued the impugned notification at Annexure-A calling for appointment on temporary basis. It is well settled principle of law that one temporary employee cannot be replaced or substituted by another temporary employee. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292 at paragraph-3 has held as under:
"3. We have carefully looked into the judgment of the High Court and other pleadings that have been put forth before this Court. It is clear that though the appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment as such it cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale nor that they should not be continued till regular incumbents are appointed. The course adopted by the High Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate for these persons who have gained experience which will be more beneficial and useful to the colleges concerned rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis. Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the High Court to the extent the same deny the claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in service till regular incumbents are appointed. We direct that they shall be continued in service till regular appointments are made on minimum of the pay scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part accordingly."
7. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the view that o
