Dr. Aparna Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Since identical facts and issued are involved in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

The petitioners herein are Doctors working under the Ayurvedic Department of the State of Chhattisgarh. They are qualified Degree Holder having

degree of BAMS. They were initially appointed as Ayurved Medical Officers in the year, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2008. The appointment of the

petitioners were on contract basis. The contract was for a fixed tenure of one year or till a regular appointment is made, whichever is earlier.

However, since no recruitment were made, the government continued to renew the contract of the petitioners every year continuously till now and as

such the petitioners have put in around 13-14 years of service.

The contention of the petitioners are the petitioners have discharged their duties with utmost commitment and have also been awarded and

complemented on various occasions for outstanding work discharged by them particularly during this Pandemic period for last 1 and ½ years. The

petitioners have now filed these writ petitions seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider their claim for regularization. According to the

petitioners, there are large number of vacancies available for the petitioners to be regularized against regular sanctioned vacant post available in the

department considering the experience and the length of service that the petitioners have gained for the last 13-14 years. The petitioners should be

considered by the State for being regularized in service.

The counsel for the petitioners submits that the State Govt. time and again have been regularizing the services of daily wage employees who were

never appointed under any rules, guidelines or instructions of the State Govt. yet after a considerable period of time the daily wage employees are

getting regularized. However, the petitioners herein who have undergone due process of selection and were found meritorious at the time of selection

and in the past 13-14 years of time they have been discharging exemplary service yet the respondents are not considering the claim of the petitioners

for regularization. It is further contention of the petitioners that under the garb of contractual appointment the petitioners are made to work against the

post which are otherwise to be discharged by a regular Ayurved Medical Officer and yet the petitioners are substantially denied of salary and

incentive package which is otherwise payable to a regular Ayurved Medical Officer. The contention of the petitioners also is that there are many

other States in India like State of Uttarakhand, Haryana and Karnataka where the Govt. have already taken a policy decision for regularizing the

contractual Ayurved Medical Officers. Therefore, the State of Chhattisgarh may also consider the claim of the petitioners in this regard. Thus, for all

these reasons, the counsel for the petitioners prays for appropriate direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for

regularization.

The State counsel on the other hand submits that the petitioners are appointed under specific rules pertaining to contractual appointment. The order

of appointment is very explicit so far as their tenure of service is concerned. It is also the contention of the State that the petitioners having accepted

the conditions of appointment with wide open eyes cannot now be permitted to turn around and agitate for their claim for regularization. that it was

also specifically mentioned in the order of appointment that by virtue of the contractual appointment the employee would not be permitted to raise a

claim in this regard at a later stage. It was also the contention of the State counsel that even when the appointment of the petitioners were renewed

every year, the extension also was specifically mentioning the fixed tenure. Thus, for all these reasons the petitioners do not have any legal right for

regularization.

Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, indisputably the petitioners have undergone due selection process

and were found meritorious while being appointed. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have put in more than decade of service though under

contractual appointment. The services of the petitioners were definitely found to be satisfactory which is evident from the periodical extension of

contractual engagement. There is also no dispute to the fact that there are sanctioned vacant post available under the State Govt..

Given the said facts, it is now for the State Govt. to take a decision whether they intend to consider the length of satisfactory service rendered by

the petitioners particularly taking into consideration their service which were rendered during the Pandemic period for last 1 and ½ years and

consider whether the petitioners could be regularized in service by taking appropriate policy decision or atleast the State Govt. can in the alternative

consider for going in for filling up of regular post of Ayurved Medical Officer by giving some preferential treatment to the petitioners considering the

length of service that they have rendered.

Let the petitioners in this regard raising their claim for regularization, move appropriate representation to the respondents No.1&2 who in turn shall

take appropriate decision on the claim of the petitioners for regularization at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of

receipt of representation moved by the petitioners.

With the aforesaid observations, all the writ petitions stand disposed of.