AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
The petitioner has preferred the present petition primarily to seek two reliefs. The first relief sought was in respect of advertisement dated 06.01.2021 issued by respondents inviting applications for contractual appointment of lecturer in the Government Institute of Hotel Management, Dehradun on contractual basis for the year 2021-22.
The petitioner was aggrieved by the said advertisement on the ground that the petitioner was already serving on the post of lecturer on contractual basis in the said institute and one set of contractual employee cannot be replaced by another.
The second grievance raised by the petitioner was with regard to non-payment of salary for the period from June 2021 to October 2021 and consequentially the petitioner sought payment of salary with consequential benefits. The petitioner also sought a declaration that the practice of making contractual appointment was farce and sham and that the petitioner be treated as regular employee with all consequential benefits including equal pay for equal work vis-à-vis the regular employees.
Vide an order dated 10.11.2021 passed in these proceedings the effect and operation of the aforesaid advertisements dated 06.10.2021 and 12.10.2021 was stayed. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that with the passage of time, the said advertisement has worked itself out inasmuch as no recruitment was made of contractual staff for the sessions 2021-22. He states, on instructions, that the respondents are not proceeding to make appointments even on contractual basis under the said advertisement.
In the light of the aforesaid statement, which is taken on record, by which the respondents shall remain bound, the first relief does not survive.
So far as the second relief is concerned, in response to the petitioner’s claim that the petitioner has worked as lecturer from June 2021 to October 2021, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit categorically denying the said claim. It is contended that the petitioner’s contract ended on 31.05.2021. Thereafter, on account of summer vacation and due to covid-19 pandemic, the next session was delayed. Thus, respondents stated that the petitioner, in fact, not worked after 31st May, 2021 uptil October, 2021.
Looking to the factual controversy arising in relation to the said claim of the petitioner, which requires adjudication of disputed questions of facts, we are not inclined to get into the same and leave it open to the petitioner to pursue his claim in other competent/ appropriate proceedings.
So far as other reliefs are concerned, they are not made out, considering the fact that the AICTE has laid down the norms with regards to the appointments of lecturers and even the Government has issued an order that no contractual appointment would be made beyond the Session 2021-22.
With the aforesaid observations, we dispose of the present writ-petitions.