Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 4675
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHAT, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMA N, JJ
BAIJNATH KUMHAR – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
CW / 5234 / 2024
Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prateek Surana & Mr. Aniket Tater Dr. Nikhil Dungawat For Respondent(s): Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy.S.G.
The court emphasized the necessity for regularization of services for employees appointed through competitive processes after prolonged service, highlighting the importance of prior resolutions and legal precedents.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 & 21 - Writ petitions challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the regularization of petitioners' services as Staff Nurse Grade-II - Petitioners appointed on a contractual basis but seeking regularization after 10 years of service - Court emphasizes the need for a fresh speaking order considering prior resolutions and legal precedents. (Paras 1, 3, 12, 13)
(B) Regularization of Services - The court highlights that the petitioners were appointed through a competitive process and have been working for over a decade, thus warranting consideration for regularization. (Paras 3.1, 12)
(C) Interim Orders - The court notes the interim protection granted to the petitioners against termination during the pendency of their applications. (Paras 8, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were appointed as Staff Nurse Grade-II at AIIMS, Jodhpur on a contractual basis in 2014, after a competitive selection process. They sought regularization of their services, which was denied by the Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the Tribunal's order and directed the respondents to issue a fresh speaking order regarding the regularization of the petitioners' services within three months.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the Tribunal's order and the petitioners' entitlement to regularization after prolonged service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners, having served for over ten years and appointed through a competitive process, should be considered for regularization, emphasizing the importance of prior resolutions and legal precedents.
Result: Writ petitions partly allowed.
Judgment
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. Since the instant writ petitions arise out of the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short, ‘the Tribunal’), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Applications No.445/2016 & other connected matters, therefore, the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
1.1. For the sake of brevity, the facts, as pleaded in one of the petitions, being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5234/2024 and the prayer clauses thereof, are taken for the purpose of present analogous adjudication.
1.2 The prayer clauses reads as under:-
“i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment and order dated 12th March 2024 (annex-1) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur while rejecting the Original Application No.445/2016, may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the original application filed by the petitioners before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, may kindly be allowed and the respondents be directed to confer the regular pay scale i.e. 9300-34800 with the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- after regularizing their services on the post of Staff Nurse Grade-II, with all consequential benefits.
iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to treat the petitioners as regular after completing 2 years of service on the post of Staff Nurse Gr.II and confer them the benefits of permanent servant of AIIMS, Jodhpur with all consequential benefits.
iv) Without prejudice to above, by an appropriate order or direction, the contractual appointment of the petitioners be declared sham and it may be declared that the appointments of the petitioners made pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.07.2013 as regular appointments and therefore, the petitioners be conferred the benefit of regular pay scale from the date they have been appointed with AIIMS Jodhpur with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary.
v) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be restrained to terminate the services of the petitioners, and if during the pendency of the writ petition, the services of the petitioners are terminated, the orders of termination, may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.
vi) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.
Vii) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners.”
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr.Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Prateek Surana and Dr.Nikhil Dungawat, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, are that the respondent-All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Jodhpur issued an advertisement on 15.07.2013 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment on various posts, including Staff Nurse Grade-II for Nursing Colleges and Hospital Services, on contract basis initially for a period of 11 months, at AIIMS, Jodhpur.
2.1. The petitioner having possessed the requisite educational qualification, applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement; after going through the written examination as well as the interview process, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Staff Nurse Grade II (in short, ‘post in question’), vide appointment order dated 15.01.2014, by the respondents. Such appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time.
2.2. The petitioner filed a representation seeking regularization on the post in question and for grant of regular pay scale, pertaining thereto, with all consequential benefits, but no heed was paid by the respondent-department. Thereafter, while apprehending the termination of his services, the petitioner filed an Original Application bearing O.A. No
