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

2021 Supreme(HP) 438

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Urmila Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
Managing Director & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 480 of 2017
Decided On : 04-05-2021

Advocates appeared:
Sevedaman Rathore, Advocate, V.B. Verma, Advocate, Rahul Mahajan, Advocate

Headnote:

Regularization - TGT Music - Societies Registration Act, 1860, Army Welfare Education Society Rules and Regulations Vol.-I - The court directed the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner as TGT Music after completion of five years of service on contract basis, with all consequential benefits. The court held that the denial of regularization to the petitioner was arbitrary and not sustainable in law, as the Rules and Regulations governing the appointments of contractual TGTs conferred upon such appointees a right of regularization after a prescribed number of years of service.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a TGT Music, sought regularization of her services after working for more than a decade. The respondent opposed, citing the petitioner's temporary/contractual basis of employment and unsatisfactory performance.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's continuous service and the respondent's act of appointing another person during the petitioner's maternity leave supported the petitioner's apprehension. The court held that the petitioner had the right to regularization as per the Rules and Regulations.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, employed on a temporary/contractual basis, had the right to seek regularization of her services.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of regularization to the petitioner was arbitrary and not sustainable in law, as the Rules and Regulations governing the appointments of contractual TGTs conferred upon such appointees a right of regularization after a prescribed number of years of service.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner as TGT Music after completion of five years of service on contract basis, with all consequential benefits.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

"A. Issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to regularize the service of the petitioner as TGT Music who has been working as TGT Music from last 11 years.

B. Issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to renew the contract of service of petitioner as TGT Music w.e.f. 25.04.2017.

C. Issue of an ex parte ad interim order or direction to respondents No. 1 to 4 to not to discontinue the contract of service of the petitioner and further not to recruit any other person for the said job, during the pendency of the writ petition."

2. The case of the petitioner is that she did her M.A. in Music (Vocal), in the year 2003, followed by M.Phil. in Music in the year 2004. She thereafter did her Ph.D in Music (Vocal) in the year 2014 from Himachal Pradesh University. She qualified UGC NET examination twice in the year 2004 and 2005 and also State Level Eligibility test in the year 2004. She also passed Sangeet Prabhakar examination from Prayag Sangeet Samiti Allahabad in the year 2004 as well as All India Written Test for teachers conducted by Army Welfare Education Society in the year 2009. Respondent-Society advertised the post of TGT Music in the year 2006. The petitioner participated in the selection process undertaken and being successful was appointed as TGT Music from 8th April, 2006 to 31st March, 2007. She thereafter was again subjected to the selection process and was appointed as TGT Music from 9th April, 2007 to 31st March, 2008. In the year 2008, respondent-Society again advertised the post of TGT Music and petitioner being successful in the interview was again offered appointment on temporary basis from 08.04.2008 to 31st March, 2009. She was again subjected to selection process in the year 2009, and being successful, was again offered appointment as TGT Music on contract basis vide letter dated 01.04.2009 from 03.04.2009 to 02.04.2012. The petitioner was thereafter engaged on contractual basis from 10.04.2012 to 09.04.2015. She was engaged from 17.04.2015 to 16.04.2016 and from 25.04.2016 to 24.4.2017.

3. According to the petitioner, she had submitted various representations praying for her regularization but as the services of the petitioner were not being regularized, despite her being in service of respondent-Society for more than a decade, she filed present writ petition praying for issuance of the directions to the said respondent to regularize her services. It was further pleaded in the writ petition that on account of her being in family way, she had sought maternity leave, which stood granted in her favour, and she was apprehending that respondent-Society may engage someone else by not granting extension to her services, and therefore, a prayer was made that during the pendency of the petition, no other person be appointed in her place. It is on this background that this writ petition stood filed. The petition was filed in the Court on 17th of March, 2017.

4. The petition is opposed by respondent No. 3/ Society inter alia on the ground that respondent-Society is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India because it is neither funded by Central Government nor by State Government. As per it, respondent No. 3 is a school run by Army Welfare Education Society, which is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and as its infrastructure was created out of Regimental Funds which are not public funds, therefore, said respondent is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The factum of the petitioner having been engaged as TGT Music on temporary and contract basis is not disputed in the response, but it stood mentioned in the reply that as the petitioner was appointed on temporary/contract basis in terms of the letter of appointmen

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