1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

O R D E R

DB Special Appeal (W) No.1558/2014

DB Special Appeal (W) No.1655/2014

DB Special Appeal (W) No.1658/2014

DB Special Appeal (W) No.1659/2014

DB Special Appeal (W) No.1729/2014

Judgment reserved on 1^st April, 2015

Date of Judgment

: 17^th April, 2015

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

Hon'ble Mr. Justice JK Ranka

Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Devesh Chouhan, for appellants.

Mr. SS Shekhawat,

Mr. MF Baig, for respondent.

BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Rastogi), J.

Instant bunch of appeals have been filed against the self same

common judgment of the Ld. Single Judge dt.21.8.2014, hence, with

consent of the parties, are finally disposed of at motion stage.

The facts can be noticed from SBCWP-16221/2013 Anurag Kumar

Sharma & Anr. Vs. Regional Director, National Institute of Open

Schooling, Regional Centre & Anr.

The respondent-1 writ petitioner was initially engaged on

contract with National Institute of Open Schooling, Regional Centre at

Jaipur on the post of Executive Officer vide order dt.13.8.2008 on

consolidated salary. He was initially appointed for one year and

contract was extended from time to time. However, institute took a

2

decision not to extend the period of contract and his name was not

included in the list of employees engaged on contract basis

dt.23.7.2013 by which contract was extended of other contractual

employees.

When the institute issued an advertisement dt.30.8.2013 and at

that stage he approached by filing of writ petition and it was prayed

that mandamus be issued to the institute and order dt.23.7.2013 by

which term of contractual appointment of writ petitioner came to an

end be quashed and set aside and to continue him on the post of

Executive Officer (Non-Academic).

Initially, interim protection was granted on 18.9.2013 directing

the appellant institute that if any person is appointed on the post of

Executive Officer that will remain subject to final outcome of the writ

petition, however, further interim order came to be passed on

5.2.2014 not to extend contractual employment of any other person, if

made, however, left it open for the respondents to appoint the

petitioner on the same terms as before. Thereafter, third interim

order dt.9.5.2014 was passed in the other aforesaid four writ petitions

which were later on filed to the effect that in the ongoing process for

selection pursuant to advertisement (Ann.3), the writ petitioners shall

be given preference subject to their satisfying the eligibility criteria

and may not engage fresh hands till writ petitioners and other

contractual appointees who have rendered services with them for

longer period are exhausted.

3

At the same time, another advertisement came to be notified by

the appellant dt.6.5.2014 to fill the post of Senior Executive Officer

(retired employee only) and at that stage respondent petitioner

Anurag Kumar Sharma filed stay application with the grievance that

the subsequent advertisement has been issued only with a view to

frustrate his right of fair consideration for appointment, however, it

has been given different nomenclature but the nature of duties are

same and that has now been confined to retired employees.

The grievance of the respondent Anurag Kumar Sharma was that

as he has been appointed on contract basis and the work discharged by

him is still existing and there appears no justification for the appellant

not to retain the respondent (writ petitioner) and this practice is

violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. In other four writ petitions, the

grievance of the writ petitioners was that because of interim order

passed by the Court dt.5.2.2014, appointment on contract basis has

been halted by the appellant, however, according to the respondents

the