Ram Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the advertisement dated 15.09.2016, whereby another set of contractual employees were sought to be engaged, in place of the petitioners. While issuing notices, this Court had stayed further appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.09.2016.

Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' services had been dispensed with vide order dated 28.03.2016. It is not only the predicament of the petitioners, but also of the residents of the state inasmuch as on one hand the petitioners' services were brought to an end and on the other hand, the funds made available by the Central Government have lapsed on more than one occasion.

Mr. Bijarnia, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the settled proposition of law that one set of contractual employees cannot be substituted by another set of contractual employees, unless regularly selected candidates are available. He added that in the present case, since the engagement of the petitioners is only on project, the State may not like to go for regular selection. As such until and unless the scheme is discontinued, the respondents cannot bring an end to their engagement.

To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mooli Devi Choudhary & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors . reported in 2010(4) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 334; Surendra Kumar Gurjar &

Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4582/2017 and urged that in light of the aforesaid judgments and consistent view of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners are entitled for mandamus that their services may not be dispensed with till the project continues.

In addition thereto, counsel for the petitioners cited a judgment dated 11.08.2016 in Writ Petition No.5060 of 2015 (ATMA Employee's Welfare Association vs. The Union of India & Ors .) rendered by Bombay High Court in relation to the same schemes namely Agriculture Technology Management Agency

(ATMA). Vide said judgment, Bombay High Court has allowed the

writ petition, with the following observations :-

"In the present case, the petitioners have undergone the selection process undertaken by the State Government as per its policy. There is no objection to the recruitment process that has been undergone by the present petitioners. The petitioners are not claiming permanent status based upon their temporary employment or absorption or regularisation. What is claimed by the petitioners is that they should be continued in employment till the scheme in question is continued or till there is a change in the recruitment of the qualification under the scheme by the Central Government. The case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir (cited supra)."

On the other hand, Mr. BD Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners' engagement with the respondents were purely on contract basis and their services have been brought to an end on 31.03.2016. According to him since the petitioners are not continuing with the respondents, no such directions can be passed.

He contended that if the respondents are directed to continue with the same set of contractual employees, the new incumbents or unemployed youth will not get an opportunity of employment.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the judgments cited at bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and hence allowed. Needless to observe that the respondents are not justified in dispensing with the services of the petitioners working under project as ATMA on the one hand and inviting application for suitable candidates to be appointed on contractual basis on the other hand.

This Court has been deprecating such practice of the respondents time and again. Be that as it may, the respondents are directed to continue with the same arrangement(s), which was prevailing before passing of the impugned order 28.03.2016.

The respondents shall ask/permit the petitioners to join the duties on or before 15.09.2017, filing which the petitioners shall be entitled for their honorarium/monthly remuneration from 1 st October, 2017.