The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an appeal against the rejection of an appellant's application for extending his contractual employment as a Rojgar Sahayak. The Court held it was within the employer's prerogative not to extend a fixed-term contract and no flaw existed in the lower court's order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 55 of 2019
---- Appellant
Versus
| ---- Respondents | |
|---|---|
| For Appellant : |
Ms. Sakshi Bali, Advocate on behalf of |
| Ms. Ranjana Singh Tomar, Advocate | |
| For State/Respondents No. 1 and 2 : | Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Additional |
| Advocate General | |
| For Respondent No. 3 to 5 : |
Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate |
2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri N.K.Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
07/10/2023
1. The appellant/writ petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 05/12/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.8013 of 2018 by which his prayer to extend the contractual employment has been rejected.
2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant before the learned Single Judge is that initially he was appointed Rojgar Sahayak, Gram Panchayat, Gopalpur, Janpad Panchayat, Surajpur, as contractual employee on 20/07/2007 and he continued to work in the year 2018. The respondents discontinued his services in the year 2018 on the ground that the appellant did not had grading of “excellent” or “very good” and that it was only “good” which disqualifies him for extension of his contractual employment.
3. The learned Single Judge observed that since the appointment of the appellant was contractual in nature and the contract exists for a specific period, beyond the terms of contract no right accrue in favour of the contractual employee. Relying on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Ekta Shakti Foundation vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2006 AIR SCW 3601 and State of Maharashtra & Others. v. Anita & Another (2016 8 SCC 293) dismissed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge had further granted liberty to the petitioner to participate in any future recruitment process initiated by the respondents and his discontinuance would not come in the way of the respondents from considering the appellant. The appellant was further granted liberty to make suitable representation to the authorities for reconsidering their decision for re-engaging him as a contractual employee.
3
4. Ms. Sakshi Bali, learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the appointment of the appellant was contractual in nature, however, there is no complaint against the appellant or any dissatisfaction shown by the respondent authorities so as to not continue his services. She further submits that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant before terminating his services. She further submits that in place of the appellant, the respondent No. 6 has been appointed.
5. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 5 submit that it is not a case of termination but it is a case where the services of the appellant has not been extended as he was contractual employee for a specified period.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
7. From perusal of the pleadings made in this appeal, we find that no grounds worth considering has been raised. Even the appellant has not been able to establish that on account of his grading in the ACR, his services has not been discontinued. Further, on a query by this Court as to whether the appellant had made any representation before the authorities as granted by the learned Single Judge, Ms. Sakshi submits that the appellant has not made any representation.
8. It is an admitted position that the nature of appointment of the appellant was contractual and for a fixed period. It is the prerogative of the employer whether to extend the contractual appointment or not. It is not even the case that the appellant has been terminated in a mid way but the only thing is that his contractual services has not been extended for the next term. Further, new appointments have been made and as such, the post is also not vacant. The appellant has not been able to point out any flaw in the order passed by the
4
learned Single Judge. Even the liberty granted to the appellant for making a representation to the respondent authorities to reconsider their decision for reengaging the petitioner has also not been availed. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/Sd/- (N.K.Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge's order rejecting the extension of contractual employment to the appellant requires interference.
Whether the non-extension of a contractual appointment for a fixed period amounts to termination warranting judicial intervention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ekta Shakti Foundation vs. Govt. of NCT of DelhiReferred¶21
Ekta Shakti Foundation vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2006 AIR SCW 3601 · Who else cites this
State of Maharashtra & Others. v. Anita & AnotherReferred¶21
State of Maharashtra & Others. v. Anita & Another (2016 8 SCC 293) · Who else cites this
Shashi Kumar Singh
State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary
Collector And District Co-Ordinator Surajpur
Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Surguja
Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Surajpur
Seeta
Ramesh Sinha
N.K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
