Back
2024 Supreme(HP) 155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Erra Atwal - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 4474 of 2023
Decided On : 22-03-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Servedaman Rathore.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Mr. V.S. Chauhan with Mr. Arsh Chauhan and Mr. Vanshaj Bhardwaj.
IMPORTANT POINT
The existence of specific service rules providing for the right to be considered for regularization after a specific period of time is essential to claim entitlement for regularization of employment.
Headnote:
Regularization - Employment Dispute - Army Welfare Rules - Article 128(k) - [Regularization, Employment Dispute, Army Welfare Rules, Article 128(k)] - The court dismissed the petition seeking regularization of employment as the petitioner failed to establish the existence of any service rules providing for the right to be considered for regularization after a specific period of time. The court also emphasized the petitioner's participation in the selection process without objection, which disentitled her from challenging the process later.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regularization of her employment as a PRT in a school where she had served for approximately ten years. She claimed entitlement for renewal of her contract and challenged the appointment of other candidates in her place.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to establish the existence of any service rules providing for the right to be considered for regularization after a specific period of time. The court also emphasized the petitioner's participation in the selection process without objection, which disentitled her from challenging the process later.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to regularization of employment and renewal of her contract, as well as the validity of the appointment process for other candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's failure to establish the existence of service rules providing for the right to be considered for regularization after a specific period of time, and her participation in the selection process without objection, led to the court's decision to dismiss the petition.
Final Decision: The petition seeking regularization of employment was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash/set aside the appointment(s) of respondent No 5 to 7, made in contravention of law issued by respondent authorities (AnnexureP-6) which is illegal, arbitrary and against the settled provisions of law.
ii). Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to allow the petitioner to continue serving as PRT and to renew the contract of service of petitioner.
iii). Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to regularize the service of the petitioner as PRT who has been working as PRT for last 10 years.
iv). Issuance of an ex-parte ad-interim order or direction to respondent No.1 to 4 to not to discontinue the contract of service of the petitioner and further not to recruit/engage any other person for the said job, during the pendency of the writ petition.
2. Petitioner has set-up a case that she was appointed as PRT in Army Public School, Yol Cantt., District Kangra, H.P.(for short ‘The School’) initially for a period of three years w.e.f. 19.06.2013 to 18.06.2016 on contract basis. Petitioner again served the same school for another period of three years from 27.06.2016 to 26.06.2019 on similar terms. From 11.07.2019 to 31.03.2020, petitioner served the school on adhoc basis and thereafter again w.e.f. 15.04.2020 to 31.03.2023, she was appointed as PRT in the school on contract basis.
3. It has also been averred that in the month of February, 2023, the School invited applications for appointment of PRT teachers on fixed term basis/adhoc panel. Petitioner had already put up her case before respondents No. 2 to 4 with respect to her entitlement for regularization and for such reason she was shocked to find the aforesaid advertisement having been issued by respondent/School. As per petitioner, she made inquiries from respondents No. 2 to 4 and was assured that the advertisement was mere procedural formality and petitioner being the senior most and most qualified candidate, her services would be continued with a renewed contract. As per petitioner, in such circumstances, she appeared in the interview held on 10.03.2023 alongwith six other candidates. However, her contract was not renewed and respondents No. 5 to 7, were given appointments as PRTs on contract basis.
4. It is also the case of the petitioner that various representation were submitted on her behalf to respondents No. 2 to 4 with the grievance against her exclusion and also making demand for regularization of the services of the petitioner but only on one occasion reply, dated 09.06.2023, was received, whereby respondents No. 2 to 4 had attempted to justify their action.
5. The grievance as raised by the petitioner is two fold, firstly, that the petitioner was entitled to regularization of services and the denial of such right of the petitioner by respondents No. 2 to 4 was against law and secondly, the petitioner having rendered approximately ten years of service to the school was entitled for renewal of the contract.
6. Respondents No. 2 to 4 have filed their reply(and have contested the claim of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the remedy of invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not available to the petitioner as the school is purely private unaided institution. It has also been submitted that the appointments of teachers in the school are made in accordance with applicable service rules, which provide for tenure/temporary service. The appointment of petitioner from time to time was in terms of the such rules. The right to regularization as claimed by the petitioner has also been denied to exist. It has been submitted that the service rules applicable to the respondents do not provide for regularization of services of a teacher after specified period, rather the regular appointme
