SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 364

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Rekha Borana, J.
Tejendra Singh Shaktawat S/o Shri Narain Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10330/2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10332/2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12411/2018
Decided On : 18-08-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinay Jain.
For the Respondents: Ms. Akshiti Singhvi.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226(3) - Recruitment process - Age of retirement - Regularization of services - Post of Stenographer - Contractual basis – Held, It is clear on record that specific direction in earlier writ petition filed by petitioners in year 2014 was that they would be continued till process for regular selection is undertaken and completed by State Department. It is not in dispute that said process had been initiated in year 2018 and has now been completed in year 2022. It is also not in dispute that present petitioners participated in said process and did not succeed. In opinion of this Court, petitioners having once participated in selection process and after failure thereof cannot claim any right to be continued or being regularized in services - Petitions disposed of.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petitions have been filed with the prayer for regularization of services of the petitioners on the post of Stenographer.

2. The brief facts of the cases are that the petitioners were initially appointed in the year 2003 as Stenographer on contractual basis through a placement agency. They continued to work till the year 2013 when they apprehended that their services would now be terminated by the State department. At that stage, certain petitions were preferred before this Court and the lead case Mukesh Kumar Khatik vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5049/2014) was decided on 01.09.2014. Mukesh Kumar Khatik’s petition was allowed with the following directions:

    “In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed with the following directions:

i. the petitioner may be permitted to work on the post in question till regular selected candidates made available for the post in question as per the decision taken by the Government;

ii. no retired person shall be engaged on these regular sanctioned posts;

iii. the stay is operated in this case, therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to work on the post in question till regularly selected candidates are made available upon the same terms and conditions upon which he was engaged.”

3. The petitioners then were continued on the said posts and in the year 2018, a fresh advertisement for recruitment on the posts of Stenographer was issued by the State Government. The said advertisement was issued on 04.07.2018. Soon after the same being issued, the present petitions were preferred by the petitioners on 12.07.2018 for regularization of their services on the ground that they have completed 10 years of services and therefore they deserve regularization. Vide interim order dated 24.07.2018, it was directed that the petitioner would not be discontinued from the contractual services if not already discontinued.

4. During the pendency of the present petitions, the recruitment process as initiated by the State Government was completed and the final result was declared on 11.05.2022. After the declaration of the result, appointment orders of 97 people were also issued vide order dated 26.07.2022. In the above circumstances an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of State with the submission that as now the regularly selected candidates are available with the Department, the services of the petitioners deserve to be discontinued.

5. With the consent of the parties, the matters have been heard finally.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that although the regular recruitment process has been initiated and completed by the Department, so far as the present three petitioners are concerned, their services deserve to be regularized as they have completed their 10 years of service without intervention of any Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the State Government itself has taken up the initiation to regularize the services of the petitioners and in support of his submissions he placed on record communication dated 24.02.2022 written by the Minister of Department with the recommendation to continue the petitioners till their age of retirement.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have no right to be continued in service or being regularized as they were the contractual employees working through a placement agency. It was merely by virtue of the order dated 01.09.2014 passed in the earlier writ petition that their services were continued. Learned counsel submitted that the directions as issued in the earlier writ petitions also implied that the petitioners were to be continued only till the regularly selected candidates are appointed. Now, as the regular recruitment process has been completed and regularly selected candidates are available with the Department, the petitioners cannot claim any right of continuance of services. Lear

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top