Dismissed

Abdul Wahid and Ors. v. State Sub and Ministrial Servanr

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2011CW/16158/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing a writ petition challenged against the non-appointment of petitioners on regular basis and non-grant of preference. The court held that those appointed on contract basis cannot claim regular employment and no mandatory direction can be issued contrary to service rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and stay application dismissed. Respondents permitted to decide preference based on past experience.

Abdul Wahid and Ors. Vs State Sub and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶3

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16158/2011 Abdul Wahid & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶5

Date of Order :: 02^nd December, 2011

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶7

Mr.Vineet Dixit , for the petitioners. By the Court:

¶8

It is a case where petitioners were initially appointed on contract basis, however, when their services were not required, the same were terminated. Against the aforesaid, the petitioners raised a dispute, which is pending for consideration before the Labour Court on a reference.

¶9

During the pendency of the dispute pending adjudication before the Labour Court, the respondents issued an advertisement calling for the applications for the post of Fireman for making regular appointments. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition with the prayer for their appointment for the post of Fireman based on their previous appointment and in the alternate, for preference in selection.

¶10

¶11

I have considered the submissions made and perused the documents enclosed along with the writ petition.

¶12

The petitioners' services were terminated sometime in the year 1999 and a period of 12 years has already passed by now. During the intervening period, petitioners raised a dispute, which was then referred to the Labour Court and is pending adjudication. The petitioners' case is for appointment pursuant to the advertisement, which is for regular appointments. The petitioners were never appointed on regular basis, rather their appointments were on contract basis. Thus, a person, never selected by the mode provided under the Rules, cannot have a right to seek reemployment on regular basis. In the aforesaid background, the prayer made for appointment of the petitioners cannot be accepted.

¶13

So far as the issue of preference is concerned, the advertisement specifies that respondents can take a decision to give preference to the persons having experience, thus second issue so raised by the petitioners has already been noticed and mentioned in the advertisement. Thus, further directions are not required to be given. In fact, appointments

¶14

¶15

have to be made as per Rules applicable and nobody should violate the conditions as provided under the Rules for appointment, hence, no direction can be given by the Court contrary to the statutory provisions.

¶16

In the aforesaid background, no case is made out for grant of relief, as prayed, rather so far as past experience is concerned, the respondents may take a decision to give preference to the petitioners.

¶17

In the light of the aforesaid, I do not any merit in the writ petition, accordingly, the writ petition so as the stay application are dismissed.

¶18

(M.N. BHANDARI), J.

¶19

Item No.11 Preety, Jr.P.A.

¶20

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶21

Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.

Abdul Wahid and Ors. v. State Sub and Ministrial Servanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Wahid and Ors. v. State Sub and Ministrial Servanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeetu Urf Jitendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Dharma Ram and Ors. Vs State Sanskrit Education Depors

Shahdab Mirza and Anr. Vs State Education Departmentors

Dr U D Tripathi Vs University of Raj

Narendra Kumar Jatav Vs State Forest Departmentors

Kavita Vs State Education Departmentors