Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, JJ.
Dr. Vishal S/o Dr. S.P. Sinha – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 423 of 2022, W.P. (S) No. 688 of 2022
Decided On : 30-11-2023
DELAY CONDONATION - Regularization of Tutor's Service - RIMS Act, 2002, Regulation 2014 - The court condoned the delay of 91 days in filing the instant appeal. The appellants challenged the dismissal of their writ petition seeking regularization of their service as Tutors at RIMS. The court found that the appellants had accepted the terms and conditions of the advertisement and appointment letters, which clearly indicated the post as a 'tenure post' for a fixed period of three years. The court held that there was no scope for regularization as the appointment letters explicitly stated that no claim for promotion or extension of Tutorship would be entertained. The court also rejected the appellants' argument of unequal bargaining power, citing that they participated in the selection process with open eyes. The court referred to a judgment to support its decision, emphasizing that the bargaining power lies with the employer and the employees cannot challenge the conditions of employment at a later stage. The court concluded that the terms and conditions of appointment were binding on the parties, and there was no scope for regularization after accepting the appointment. The court also dismissed a writ petition challenging the provision that designated the Tutor post as a 'tenure post' for three years, holding that it was not in conflict with the RIMS Act, 2002 or the Dental Council of India regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a delay condonation petition for filing an appeal seeking regularization of their service as Tutors at RIMS. The court found that the appellants had accepted the terms and conditions of the advertisement and appointment letters, which clearly indicated the post as a 'tenure post' for a fixed period of three years. The court held that there was no scope for regularization as the appointment letters explicitly stated that no claim for promotion or extension of Tutorship would be entertained. The court also dismissed a writ petition challenging the provision that designated the Tutor post as a 'tenure post' for three years, holding that it was not in conflict with the RIMS Act, 2002 or the Dental Council of India regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants had accepted the terms and conditions of the advertisement and appointment letters, which clearly indicated the post as a 'tenure post' for a fixed period of three years. The court held that there was no scope for regularization as the appointment letters explicitly stated that no claim for promotion or extension of Tutorship would be entertained. The court also dismissed a writ petition challenging the provision that designated the Tutor post as a 'tenure post' for three years, holding that it was not in conflict with the RIMS Act, 2002 or the Dental Council of India regulations.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants could seek regularization of their service as Tutors at RIMS, despite accepting the terms and conditions of the advertisement and appointment letters, which clearly indicated the post as a 'tenure post' for a fixed period of three years. Another issue was the challenge to the provision that designated the Tutor post as a 'tenure post' for three years, alleging conflict with the RIMS Act, 2002 and the Dental Council of India regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the appellants' acceptance of the terms and conditions of the advertisement and appointment letters, which clearly indicated the post as a 'tenure post' for a fixed period of three years. The court emphasized that there was no scope for regularization as the appointment letters explicitly stated that no claim for promotion or extension of Tutorship would be entertained. The court also referred to a judgment to support its decision, emphasizing that the bargaining power lies with the employer and the employees cannot challenge the conditions of employment at a later stage. The court also held that the provision designating the Tutor post as a 'tenure post' for three years was not in conflict with the RIMS Act, 2002 or the Dental Council of India regulations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the delay condonation petition and the writ petition, holding that there was no scope for regularization of the appellants' service as Tutors at RIMS. The court also dismissed the challenge to the provision that designated the Tutor post as a 'tenure post' for three years, holding that it was not in conflict with the RIMS Act, 2002 or the Dental Council of India regulations.
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
I.A. No. 10152 of 2022 in L.P.A. No. 423 of 2022
1. This petition has been filed seeking condonation of a delay of 91 days in filing the instant appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to paragraph Nos. 4 to 6 of the interlocutory application to submit that if the delay is not condoned the appellants would suffer irreparable loss and injury.
3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents do not have any serious objection, so far as the condonation of delay is concerned.
4. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and being satisfied with the cause shown by the appellants, the delay of 91 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned.
5. I.A. No. 10152 of 2022 is allowed.
L.P.A. No. 423 of 2022
6. Dr. Vishal and Dr. Tanya Khaitan have filed L.P.A. No. 423 of 2022 challenging the judgment/order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 3497 of 2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants along with others has been dismissed.
7. W.P. (S) No. 3497 of 2020 was filed for the following reliefs:
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate Writs, orders and/or directions, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to work on the post of Tutor under the Respondent, during pendency of the present writ application.
(iii) For issuance of any other appropriate writs/directions orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice.”
8. The learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition by inter-alia holding that the appellants had accepted the terms and conditions of the advertisement as well as the appointment letters and it is settled principles of law that once appointments are made and the process of appointment is complete by way of joining the said post, the persons who have duly participated in the process of appointment accepting the terms and conditions of advertisement, cannot challenge the same. It has been held that regularization is not a right of an employee who has been appointed to a post of which tenure is fixed and appointment in a ‘tenure post’ comes to an end at the end of said tenure and the same cannot be extended. It has been held that no legal right has accrued in favour of the appellants and the State has no obligation to regularize the appellants which admittedly is a ‘tenure post’. The argument that since the post of Tutor is a permanent sanctioned post, therefore, it cannot be said to be a ‘tenure post’, has also been rejected by the learned writ Court. The learned writ Court recorded the findings in paragraphs 21 and 22 while dismissing the writ petition which are quoted as under:
(a) Petitioners have accepted the terms and conditions of the advertisement as well as the appointment letters. It is settled principles of law that once appointments are made and process of appointment is complete by way of joining the said post, the petitioners who have duly participated in the process of appointment accepting the terms and conditions of advertisement, cannot challenge the same. Once petitioners have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the respondents, they are precluded from challenging the same.
(b) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Balam Prasad and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2018) 1
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acceptance of terms and conditions of employment, which clearly indicate the nature of the post as a 'tenure post' for a fixed period, pre....
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,....
The court recognized the right of the State to appoint persons on temporary basis to meet its exigencies, and held that the failure of the ATTC to maintain the student to lecturer ratio and the petit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the erroneous termination of a contract employee can lead to their entitlement to regularization in service, based on the unique circumstances....
Point of Law : Supreme Court while taking into consideration a dispute pertaining to inter se seniority, held that seniority of appellants before Supreme Court can be reckoned only from date of regul....
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
