Director General And Secretary Jawahar Kala Kendra vs Rajeev Singh Rathore

The instant special appeal has been filed by the Director General and Secretary, Jawahar Kala Kendra, under Article 225 of the Constitution of India

read with Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 against the judgment/order dated 20.04.2010 passed in SBCWP No.2807/1995, whereby

the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ-petitioner/respondent.

As per facts of the case, an advertisement was issued by the appellant on 26.12.1991 whereby 7 different posts including electrician-cum-Tube well

Operator, Audio Visual Assistant etc. were advertised to be filled up for a period of two years on contract basis on consolidated salary. The writ-

petitioner being eligible and possessing Diploma in Mechanical Engineer (Refrigeration and Air Conditioning) applied for the post of Air Conditioner

Plant Operator. After due consideration, the writ-petitioner was appointed on the said post vide order Annex.3 to the writ petition on 20.03.1992.

Admittedly there are no rules or law in existence framed by the Government of Rajasthan under Article 309 of the Constitution of India to appoint civil

servant on contract basis but the petitioner was appointed on contract basis against the existing vacant post for two years. The writ-petitioner joined

the services and was allowed to work on the said post till 02.07.1995 while extending his term of appointment. According to writ-petitioner, many

other persons who were also appointed on contract basis in pursuance to the advertisement, referred, above, the petitioner preferred a wit petition

before this Court, in which an interim order was passed directing the appellant/non-petitioner to allow him to continue on the post of AC Plant

Operator till further orders.

The writ petition was finally heard in the year 2010 by the learned Single Judge and after considering the facts and relevant provisions of law, the

learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and issued directions to screen petitioner’s candidature for the purpose of adjudging his suitability for

regularization and to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment impugned is not in consonance with law because initial appointment of the writ-petitioner

was made on contract basis and with ope eyes, he (writ-petitioner) accepted the appointment, therefore, there is no question of regularization of his

services because as per verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court, there is no question to regularize the services of the writ-petitioner as he was

appointed in accordance with law.

As per learned counsel for the appellant, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from illegality because the appointment was never

made on substantive basis, more so, the appointment was given on contract basis, therefore, this appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment

impugned may kindly be quashed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/writ-petitioner argued that other persons who were appointed in pursuance to the same

advertisement, their candidature was considered for regularization and their cases were sent to the Screening Committee for the purpose of adjudging

their suitability and eventually after recommendation made by the Committee, their services were regularized. Learned counsel for the writ-petitioner

invited our attention towards the fact that services of S/Sh. Arjun Lal Meena, Brijesh Mathur, Anil Choudhary, Bharat Singh and Rajkumar, who were

similarly situated to the writ-petitioner, were regularized, therefore, the case of the writ-petitioner is also required to be considered in the light of cases

of similarly situated employees. According to learned counsel for the writ-petitioner/respondent no error has been committed by the learned Single

Judge, therefore, this appeal may kindly be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned judgment. In our opinion when post was existence and advertised along

with other posts, and appointments were made after due advertisement on the existing vacant posts, then obviously it cannot be said that the

appointment of the writ-petitioner was illegal or backdoor entry. Further, the appellant- Department itself regularized services of other similarly

situated persons who were appointed against these posts in pursuance to the same advertisement vide which the respondent/writ-petitioner too was

appointed. Thus, obviously no discrimination can be made by the appellant so as to deny benefit of regularization.

The learned Single Judge while considering each and every fact held that the candidature of the writ-petitioner is also required to be considered for the

purpose of regularization by way of screening because during pendency of the present writ petition, other persons were considered by the screening

committee for the purpose of regularization and their services were regularized.

In view of above, we are of the opinion that the writ-petitioner who was appointed in the year 1992, and still continuing since then, is entitled to be

considered for regularization in services because other similarly situated persons working on different posts have already been regularized during

pendency of this litigation.

Consequently, this special appeal is hereby dismissed.