1992 Supreme(Raj) 898
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.S.Singhvi, J.
R.S. Rawat - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B. CWP No. 2778 of 1991.
Decided On : 7-10-1992
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Shri Rinesh Gupta, Adv.
The court held that the conditions of employment that are arbitrary and unreasonable and are not based on any legitimate interest of the employer are invalid and cannot be enforced against the employee.
Headnote:
APPOINTMENT - AD HOC APPOINTMENT - REGULAR APPOINTMENT - CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT - UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE - INVALIDITY - ESTOPPEL - PUBLIC POLICY - SUBSTANTIVE APPOINTMENT - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the conditions of his appointment as a Lower Division Clerk in a school, which was initially offered as an ad hoc appointment for a fixed term. He argued that the appointment was in fact a regular appointment and that the conditions were arbitrary and unreasonable.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appointment was in fact a regular and substantive appointment, and that the use of the word 'ad hoc' and the fixed term were invalid. The court also held that the termination of the petitioner's service was illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of the petitioner was a regular appointment or an ad hoc appointment? 2. Whether the conditions of the appointment were arbitrary and unreasonable? 3. Whether the termination of the petitioner's service was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appointment was a regular appointment because it was made after a regular selection process, and because the petitioner was appointed to a clear vacant post. 2. The court held that the conditions of the appointment were arbitrary and unreasonable because they were not based on any legitimate interest of the employer and because they were not commensurate with the benefits secured to the petitioner under the contract. 3. The court held that the termination of the petitioner's service was illegal because it was based on the invalid conditions of the appointment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, declared the use of the word 'ad hoc' and the fixed term of appointment to be invalid, declared the petitioner to be regularly appointed as a Lower Division Clerk, quashed the termination of the petitioner's service, and directed the respondents to give the petitioner all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the conditions contained in the letter which has been treated as an offer of appointment. He has also challenged the termination of his service by order dated 24.4.91. He has prayed that the respondents be directed to treat the petitioner as regularly appointed Lower Division Clerk. They may also be directed to give him all consequential benefits.
2. An advertisement dated 15.7.90 was issued by the Principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Chhan, District Tonk for making recruitment on one post of Lower Division Clerk. The vacancy was reserved for the members of Scheduled Tribes. Being a member of Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner submitted his application. According to the petitioner in all 18 candidates had submitted their applications. All of them were called for type test. The type-test was followed by interview which was taken by a Selection Committee on 20.8.90. In all 12 candidates appeared for interview before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee prepared a panel of 3 persons. The name of the petitioner was placed at serial No.2 in the panel. Shri Raja Ram Meena who was at serial No.1 in the panel was offered appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk. He however did not join. Thereafter the Principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Chhan vide his letter dated 8.1.91 offered appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the pay-scale 950-1500. In the letter containing offer of appointment it was mentioned that the appointment will be on ad hoc basis upto 30th April 1991. He was called upon to report for duty on or before 18.1.91. The petitioner joined his duties on 14.1.91. On 24.4.91, an office order was issued by the Principal of the Vidhyalaya asking the petitioner to hand over the charge before 30.4.91 in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment.
3. In the writ petition the petitioner has claimed that his appointment had preceded a regular selection and therefore the mere use of the word 'ad hoc' in the letter of appointment on the time limit fixed in the letter of appointment cannot be treated as conclusive. Shri Raja Ram Meena was offered a regular appointment on the basis of selection. He however did not join. When Shri Raja Ram Meena had been offered regular appointment, there was no occasion or justification for the respondent No. 3 to incorporate the word 'ad hoc' in the offer of appointment given to the petitioner or to the fix the term of appointment upto 30th April, 1991. The petitioner had to join in pursuance of Annexure- 2, because he was not in a position to enter into a negotiation in regard to terms and conditions of employment. He was in dire need of job and having been selected by a duly constituted selection committee he could not take chance of negotiating the terms and conditions even before entering the service.
4. The case of the respondents is that in all 12 candidates had applied to the post of Lower Division Clerk. The respondents have admitted that a selection was held. Candidates were interviewed. Shri Raja Ram Meena secured 79% marks. The petitioner secured 49% marks and Shri Om Prakash secured 47.9% marks. Shri Raja Ram Meena was offered a regular appointment because approval was obtained from Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti, Jaipur. He however did not join the service. No approval regarding the petitioner was obtained from Regional Office of Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti at Jaipur. However for smooth running of the Vidhyalaya, the petitioner was offered ad hoc appointment for a limited period. The petitioner knew about the condition contained in the offer of appointment. He knowingly accepted the same. He is therefore estopped from questioning the terms and conditions contained in the offer of his appointment. The respondents have pleaded that the appointing authority for Lower Division Clerk is the Dy. Director of Regional Office. Annexure R-3 to R-6 have been placed on reco
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
