The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking continuation on the post of Lecturer after his contract expired, noting he appeared and failed in a fresh recruitment drive.
Prayer for direction to continue on the post was rejected and petition dismissed.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.536 of 2021
Gaurav Kumar ... ... ... Petitioner
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Jyoti Nayan, AC to GP-V
04/ 07.04.2022 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider his grievances permitting him to continue on the post of Lecturer in Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad.
The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. As per the office order dated 06.03.2016 issued under the signature of respondent No.4, the vacant and sanctioned post of Lecturer in different Departments in Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad were fill-up for the Academic Year 2016-17 and the petitioner was appointed and joined in the year 2016 itself in the Department of Electrical /Electronic Engineering. Since then, he was performing his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents. Thereafter, on 23.06.2017, an advertisement was published by the respondents for appointment to the post of lecturer in different subjects., the petitioner having requisite qualification, applied for the same and appeared in the recruitment process and was declared unsuccessful; however the said advertisement was subsequently cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representation to allow him to continue in the said till the post is filled up by regular appointment, but no heed was paid and as such, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.
Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was appointed by way of contract, but it is settled principles of law that one set of contractual employee, cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards the order dated 27.07.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No.3483 of 2011 (Ashok Kumar Saha Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and submits that the ratio of the said case is
2
fully applicable in the instant case as the part time lecturers, who have been working, cannot be forced to apply afresh for further ad-hoc appointment. Learned counsel further submits that since the representation of the petitioner is still pending, a direction be given upon the respondents to pass a reasoned order and to allow the petitioner to continue on the said post till the post is filled up by regular appointment.
Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed.
Mrs. Jyoti Nayan, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that once the petitioner has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the respondents, it is not open to challenge the same. The petitioner appeared in the selection process and he has been declared unsuccessful, thereafter, he approached this Hon’ble Court to allow him to continue in the said post, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. The reliance of the petitioner in Ashok Kumar Saha (supra) case, is not at all applicable in the instant case as the petitioner has already appeared in the new recruitment process for the post of Lecturers. The petitioner was appointed as per the Agreement and as the tenure of the petitioner has come to an end, he has no right to continue on the said post and as such, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference on the ground that admittedly, the petitioner has been appointed, by way of contract followed by an Agreement for a certain period and once the contract period as per the agreement is over, no right has accrued to the petitioner to continue on the said post. The case of Ashok Kumar Saha (supra) relied upon the petitioner, is not at all applicable in the instant case as the ratio was laid down by writ was in the different context, here the petitioner has already appeared in the new selection process and declared unsuccessful, he has no right to continue on the said post and as such, there is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the respondents, in not extending the contract of the petitioner. There is no merit in the instant case.
Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
punit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a contractual lecturer has a right to continue on the post after the contract period expires without regular appointment.
Whether the reliance on Ashok Kumar Saha case is applicable where the petitioner appeared and was declared unsuccessful in a new selection process.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashok Kumar Saha Vs. State of JharkhandDistinguished¶16
W.P.(S) No.3483 of 2011 (Ashok Kumar Saha Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.)
Gaurav Kumar
The State of Jharkhand
Principal Secretary, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development Department
Director, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development Department
Principal, Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad
Dr. S. N. Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
