A contractual employee cannot claim a right to continue in service merely because their contractual employment cannot be replaced by other contractual employees.

Headnote:
CONTRACTUAL APPOINTMENT - REPLACEMENT - REGULARIZATION - [KEYWORD] - The petitioners, who were appointed as Assistant Professors on a contractual basis in a 95% aided college, cannot claim a right to continue in service merely because their contractual employment cannot be replaced by other contractual employees. The petitioners were not eligible for the posts and were appointed only because no qualified candidates applied for the posts. Now that qualified candidates have applied, the petitioners must make way for them. The petitioners' reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Piara Singh's case is misplaced as that case dealt with repeated and ad hoc appointments, which was adopted as a matter of practice by the State Government, whereas in the instant case, the petitioners' appointments were purely contractual and were not made in violation of any rules or regulations.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors on a contractual basis in a 95% aided college. They were not eligible for the posts and were appointed only because no qualified candidates applied for the posts. Now that qualified candidates have applied, the college has issued a fresh advertisement for the posts and the petitioners have been asked to vacate their positions.
Finding of the Court:

The petitioners cannot claim a right to continue in service merely because their contractual employment cannot be replaced by other contractual employees. The petitioners were not eligible for the posts and were appointed only because no qualified candidates applied for the posts. Now that qualified candidates have applied, the petitioners must make way for them.
Issues: Whether the petitioners can claim a right to continue in service merely because their contractual employment cannot be replaced by other contractual employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners' reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Piara Singh's case is misplaced as that case dealt with repeated and ad hoc appointments, which was adopted as a matter of practice by the State Government, whereas in the instant case, the petitioners' appointments were purely contractual and were not made in violation of any rules or regulations.
Final Decision: The petition is dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 5262/2022 Decided on : 11.1.2023 Dhaneshwari Verma & ors. …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and ors. ….Respondents Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioners: Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Y. W. Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.G., Mr. Y. P. S. Dhaulta, Addl. A.G., Mr. J. S. Guleria, Dy.A.G. &

Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for respondent No.1.

Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 & 3.

_____________________________________________________________________

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:

(a) To issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari to set aside and quash Annexure P-1 dated 7th June 2022 wherein fresh advertisement has been issued by Respondent No. 3 college for recruitment Lecturers/Assistant Professors History, English and Sanskrit on Part time basis on the posts on which the Petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 had been working for

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

the last number of years since the years 2015, 2013 and

2012 respectively.

(b) That the Respondents especially Respondents No 2 and 3 may be directed that the services of the Petitioners on Part time Basis/ Contractual Basis may not be replaced by fresh set of employees on Part time basis/contractual basis by virtue of Annexure P-1. The Petitioners may be allowed to continue.

(c) That the Respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the Petitioners on the respective posts keeping in view the fact that they have been serving the institution for sufficient long years at par with Regular counterparts and for all these years they have performed their duties diligently and efficiently and they have never ever gave any occasion for complaint whatsoever.

(d) That the Respondents may also be directed to pay to the Petitioners respectable salaries on account of being Grant in Aid College and even otherwise being the prestigious DAV Institution. The salaries so payable must strictly commensurate with the nature of duties as performed by the Petitioners as Lecturers at par with Regular counterparts in Government colleges and in no case the Petitioners may be subjected to any financial exploitation. In no case the Petitioners may be allowed to be subjected to interview every year. The fictional breaks may be allowed to be condoned and all this period may be treated as duty being in service.

(e) That Respondent No.1 state may be directed that the Petitioners while working in the College are not treated unfairly by Respondent No. 3 College and their service conditions are duly protected.”

2 Respondent No.3-College is an 95% aided College, where the petitioners having been working as Assistant Professors on part time basis since 2012-2015 respectively. The respondent-College is regulated by grant-in-aid Rules 2008 and in terms thereof, the grand-in-aid is admissible for meeting a part of the salary expenses in respect of the approved staff (Teaching and Non-teaching).

3 As regards the College, it has 16 approved posts in different subjects in teaching staff and 11 sanctioned posts of ministerial staff. The posts of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit, Hindi, English, Commerce, Physical Education, Mali and Sweeper are lying vacant in the college.

4 The educational qualifications of the petitioners are as under:-

Dhaneshwari Verma M.S. History with less than

52% marks.

No NET/SET/SLET No Ph.D.

Varonica Kanwar M.A. English with less than

55% marks.

No NET/SET/SLET No Ph.D.

Raksha Devi M.A. Sanskrit with more than

55% marks.

M.Phil Sanskrit, No NET/SET/SLET No Ph.D.

5 Evidently, the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualifications for being appointed as Assistant Professors in terms of regulation 4 of the U

Click Here to Read the rest of this document