Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
DINESH MEHTA
Anita Patidar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. While informing that petitioners are working as Urgent Temporary Basis on the post of Auxiliary Nursing Midwifery (ANM), learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12243/2024 (Shruti Moyal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).
2. In the case of Shruti Moyal, the following order was passed:-
“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“A. the action of the respondents while terminating the services of the petitioners from the post of Assistant Radiographer, Lab Technician and Assistant lab Technician on the ground of availability of regularly selected Lab Technicians despite the fact that posts are still lying vacant, may kindly be declared per se illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Constitution of India.
B. The impugned orders dated 12.07.2014 (Annexure-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
C. The impugned termination order of petitioner No.1 dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure- 8) and order dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure-9) by which services of petitioners
The court ruled that the termination of services of temporary employees was illegal and directed their accommodation in available posts, emphasizing the need for fair treatment regardless of job role....
The court ruled that the termination of temporary employees must consider available vacancies, ensuring fair treatment under employment law.
The court directed that petitioners on urgent temporary basis must be accommodated in available positions, emphasizing fair treatment regardless of differing job titles.
Temporary employees must be accommodated in available positions until regularly selected candidates are appointed, regardless of job title differences.
The court reinforced the principle of fair employment practices, directing the accommodation of temporary employees in available vacancies despite the appointment of regularly selected candidates.
The court directed the respondents to accommodate petitioners working temporarily in available vacancies, emphasizing fair treatment regardless of specific job roles.
The court ruled that temporary employees should be accommodated in available vacancies until regularly selected candidates are appointed, ensuring fair treatment.
Termination of services declared illegal; petitioners must be accommodated in available vacancies.
The court ruled that employees on urgent temporary basis must be accommodated in available vacancies until regularly selected candidates are appointed.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
