Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Chanchal Khurana and Ors - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Ors - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 13206, 705, 5693, 5973, 6067, 6204, 6207, 6227, 6275, 6312, 6554, 6661, 6664, 6675, 6790, 6807, 6835, 7471, 7619, 7694, 7695, 9873, 9887, 9888 and 13450 of 2019
Decided On : 21-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ram Pratap Saini, Anoop Agarwal, Sunil Kumar Singodiya, A.S. Shekhawat, Sukhraj Singh Rathore and Anil Kumar, Advs.
For the Respondent: Harshal Tholia, Adv. on behalf of V.B. Sharma, AAG and Vivek Tyagi, DGC
Contractual employees who have been selected on the basis of eligibility and merit and have gained reasonable experience cannot be removed illegally, perversely, unreasonably, unfairly, or irrationally. They can only be removed for specific reasons, such as misconduct, availability of regularly selected employees, or cessation of work.
Headnote:
CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES - SUBSTITUTION - RAJASTHAN TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ACT, 2012 - RAJASTHAN STATE TEXT BOOK BOARD VS. SHRI ANURAG MATHUR & ANR. - WRIT PETITION - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - REGULARLY SELECTED PERSONS - WORK COMES TO AN END - CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS VIOLATION - CONDUCT NOT UPTO THE MARK - PRINCIPLE OF LAST COME FIRST GO - CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES CANNOT BE REMOVED ILLEGALLY, PERVERSELY, UNREASONABLY, UNFAIRLY OR IRRATIONALLY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, contractual employees working under various schemes of the State Government, challenged the substitution of their services with another set of contractual employees. They argued that their services were satisfactory and that they had been selected on the basis of eligibility and merit, gaining valuable experience. The respondents contended that contractual employees had no absolute right to continuance and could be removed for various reasons, including misconduct, availability of regularly selected employees, or cessation of work.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that contractual employees who have been selected on the basis of eligibility and merit and have gained reasonable experience become assets to the State. Substituting them with another set of contractual employees without good reasons would be unreasonable, unfair, and irrational. The court recognized the investment of time and energy by the petitioners in gaining experience and held that they should not be replaced unless there were specific reasons, such as misconduct, availability of regularly selected employees, or cessation of work.
Issues: 1. Whether contractual employees have an absolute right to continuance in service? 2. Under what circumstances can the services of contractual employees be terminated?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and rationality in holding that contractual employees cannot be removed illegally, perversely, unreasonably, unfairly, or irrationally. The court also recognized the value of the experience gained by contractual employees and held that they should not be replaced unless there were specific reasons, such as misconduct, availability of regularly selected employees, or cessation of work.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents not to substitute the petitioners with another set of contractual employees except for the aforesaid reasons. It also directed that the principle of last come first go be adopted if work was not available with the respondents at any point of time.
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
1. Since identical question of law is involved in batch of writ petitions, the same are being decided by this common order.
2. First and foremost, learned counsel for the petitioners jointly rely upon the judgment passed by this Court in Anil Kumar Patwa Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5508/2011), decided on 20/09/2011 which reads as follows:-
"1. Respondents will not replace petitioners by another set of contractual/temporary employees either by direct contract or through placement agency.
2. Petitioners would be continued in service till BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh is continued but subject to requirement of their services. If the required strength is reduced, respondent would be at liberty to discontinue services of petitioners but it should be after following principle of last come-first go' at the block level where any of the petitioners are working. In case of withdrawal of the scheme from a particular block, respondents would be at liberty to discontinue services of the petitioners/persons working in that block and in case of continuance of scheme in the block but with reduction of strength, principle of 'last come-first go' would be applied at that block.
3. As agreed by respondents, they will not to make appointments under NRHM pursuant to short term advertisement dated 6.9.2010, rather, they have agreed not to engage any one on contract basis by a direct contract or through placement agency. It can be only on 'job basis' and for which preference would be given to the existing persons if they are in position to undertake work on 'job basis'.
4. In future, if additional hands are required to undertake work of BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, the persons, who have been discontinued, would be given preference for appointment.
5. Petitioners, who have been taken under NRHM pursuant to interim order of this court, can be discontinued if additional hands are not required under NRHM as their continuance was pursuant to the interim order of this court only but, while doing so, respondents will take note of their previous engagement at the block level. If the BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh is continued in his/her block then such a candidate/petitioners would be considered based on principle 'last come-first go'. If he is the person first appointed in comparison to other at the block level where the strength is reduced, then petitioners would be entitled to seek continuance on the principle of 'last come-first go'.
6. In future also, if there is further reduction in requirement of hands, respondents will apply the same formula of 'last come-first go at the block level for discontinuance of surplus hands as has been given above."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners jointly submit that the petitioners are working with the respondents on respective posts of Class III/VI posts under the various Schemes of the respondents namely; Mukhya Mantri Nisulk Dava Yojna, Mukhya Mantri Nisulk Jaanch Yojna, Medicare Relief Society etc. on contractual basis and their services are satisfactory. It is further submitted that by virtue of interim order passed by this Court, the contractual services of the petitioners are protected and that though the contractual appointees do not have absolute right of continuance but certainly they cannot be removed illegally, perversely, unreasonably, unfairly or irrationally. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon a judgment of Apex Court in Gridco Limited & Anr. Vs. Sadananda Doloi & Ors.: (2011) 15 SCC 16, more particularly on Para 39 which reads as follows:-
"39. A writ Court is entitled to judicially review the action and determine whether there was any illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness or irrationality that would vitiate the action, no matter the action is in the realm of contract. Having said that we must add that judicial review cannot extend to the Court acting as an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the decision. The Court cannot
