The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees appointed to tenure posts for a specified period cannot claim permanence or continuance of their tenure beyond the specified period, and their acceptance of the terms and conditions of appointment precludes them from challenging the nature of their appointments.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

The issues involved in both the writ petitions are same, similar and identical and as such they have been tagged and heard together on various dates and are being disposed of by this common order.

PRAYER

2. The writ petitioners in both these writ petitions have knocked the door of this Court for a direction upon the respondents to regularize their services to the post of Tutor under the respondents – RIMS and allow them to work to the said post.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. As per factual matrix, an advertisement no. 910, dated 19.02.2016 and advertisement no. 2250, dated 28.03.2017 were floated for appointment of Tutors in various Department of RIMS. Being eligible, petitioners applied for the same and after following the due procedures, they were appointed upon found fit vide appointment letters dated 06.12.2017 to the tenure post of Tutor in the Pay Scale of Rs.9.300 – 34,800 + Grade Pay of Rs.5,400 for a period of three years. Petitioners fulfill all the requisite educational and other qualifications and since the date of their appointments, they are discharging their duties to the said teaching post of Tutor in different Departments (Dental Institute) under the respondent – RIMS.

4. It is case of the petitioners that in Clause 19(ii) of the Notification dated 22.09.2014, issued in the Jharkhand Gazette, it has been mentioned that persons shall be appointed for a fixed tenure of three years. As per Clause (iv) of the said Clause-19, it is evident that the persons working on temporary basis or on adhoc basis, defined in Clause (iii) and (iv) of the Clause-19, shall not claim for regularization in the Institute. From the appointment letters issued by the respondents, it is evident that at Sl. No. 1, the post on which petitioners have been appointed, is a Tenure post and is for a period of three years. From the said appointment letter, it is clear that petitioners are not working on temporary basis or on adhoc basis.

5. It is further case of the petitioners that a resolution dated 11.05.2015 was issued by the respondents – State in which at column-1, it has been clearly stated that the post of Tutor comes under the category of teaching post and the same is a sanctioned post. Petitioners are concerned with the post of Tutor, which is reflected at Sl. No. 5 of the said Resolution.

6. Petitioners apprehended that they may be terminated from the service upon completion of three years of tenure from the date of their appointment and as such they made representation before the respondents for redressal of their grievances but no decision has been taken and hence this writ petition.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

7. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assisted by Mr. Abhishek Sinha and Mr. Raunk Sahay submitted that admittedly the post of Tutor comes under the Teaching Post. As per Resolution dated 11.05.2015, there are two categories of posts – One Teaching and another Non-Teaching and all the posts are permanent in nature, as would be evident from the advertisements dated 19.02.2016 and 28.03.2017 itself. It is in the year 2016 and 2017, the advertisements had been issued and petitioners had no options but to accept terms and conditions of the advertisement. Learned Sr. counsel further argued that the posts are sanctioned posts and petitioners have been continuously working after being selected and there is no complaint from any corner and as such their cases may be considered for regularisation.

8. Learned Sr. Counsel further argued that the post of Tutor is an inductive post in RIMS. Petitioners are qualified Dentists and have also completed their Post Graduate in different Branches of Dentistry and as such their services will be governed by the Rules framed by the Dental Council of India and not by Medical Council of India and/or any Senior Residency Scheme. Learned Sr. Counsel further argued that the Dental Council of India has clearly differentiated between