Dismissed

Mukesh Kumar Khatik v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2022CW/12411/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge disposed of three writ petitions seeking regularization of services for contractual stenographers. Relying on precedent regarding contractual employees, the Court held that since regular candidates were appointed, the petitioners had no right to continuance, but allowed a sympathetic representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; leave granted to file sympathetic representation for regularization considering 18 years of service.

Mukesh Kumar Khatik Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10330/2018

¶4

Tejendra Singh Shaktawat S/o Shri Narain Singh, Aged About 35 Years, F/369, Rama Vihar, Ajmer Road, Bhilwara

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

The Special Public Prosecutor, Women Atrocities Court, Bhilwara

¶9

Chairman Trig Ex-Serviceman Welfare Co-Operative Society Limited, B-173, Jamnapuri Colony, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur- 302013

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10332/2018

¶13

Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay S/o Shri Yadram Upadhyay, Aged About 42 Years, House No. 76-A, Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶17

The Special Public Prosecutor, Ndps Cases Court, Bhilwara 3. Chairman Trig Ex-Serviceman Welfare Co-Operative Society Limited, B-173, Jamnapuri Colony, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur- 302013

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12411/2018

¶20

Mukesh Kumar Khatik S/o Sh. Ram Lal Khatik, Aged About 38 Years, Dadi Badi, Tilak Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj)

¶21

----Petitioner

¶22

Versus

¶23

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶24

The Additional Public Prosecutor No. 2, Bhilwara.

¶25

Chairman Trig Ex-Serviceman Welfare Co-Operative Society Limited, B-173, Jamnapuri Colony, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur-302013

----Respondents

(2 of 6)

[CW-10330/2018]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Jain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Akshiti Singhvi

¶30

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶31

Order

¶32

18/08/2022

¶33

The present writ petitions have been filed with the prayer for regularization of services of the petitioners on the post of Stenographer.

¶34

The brief facts of the cases are that the petitioners were initially appointed in the year 2003 as Stenographer on contractual basis through a placement agency. They continued to work till the year 2013 when they apprehended that their services would now be terminated by the State department. At that stage, certain petitions were preferred before this Court and the lead case Mukesh Kumar Khatik vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5049/2014) was decided on 01.09.2014. Mukesh Kumar Khatik’s petition was allowed with the following directions:

¶35

“In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed with the following directions:

¶36

i. the petitioner may be permitted to work on the post in question till regular selected candidates made available for the post in question as per the decision taken by the Government;

¶37

ii. no retired person shall be engaged on these regular sanctioned posts;

¶38

iii. the stay is operated in this case, therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to work on the post in question till regularly selected candidates are made available upon the same terms and conditions upon which he was engaged.”

¶39

(3 of 6)

¶40

[CW-10330/2018]

¶41

The petitioners then were continued on the said posts and in the year 2018, a fresh advertisement for recruitment on the posts of Stenographer was issued by the State Government. The said advertisement was issued on 04.07.2018. Soon after the same being issued, the present petitions were preferred by the petitioners on 12.07.2018 for regularization of their services on the ground that they have completed 10 years of services and therefore they deserve regularization. Vide interim order dated 24.07.2018, it was directed that the petitioner would not be discontinued from the contractual services if not already discontinued.

¶42

During the pendency of the present petitions, the recruitment process as initiated by the State Government was completed and the final result was declared on 11.05.2022. After the declaration of the result, appointment orders of 97 people were also issued vide order dated 26.07.2022. In the above circumstances an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of State with the submission that as now the regularly selected candidates are available with the Department, the services of the petitioners deserve to be discontinued.

¶43

With the consent of the parties, the matters have been heard finally.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that although the regular recruitment process has been initiated and completed by the Department, so far as the present three petitioners are concerned, their services deserve to be regularized as they have completed their 10 years of service without intervention of any Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the State

¶45

(4 of 6)

¶46

[CW-10330/2018]

¶47

Government itself has taken up the initiation to regularize the services of the petitioners and in support of his submissions he placed on record communication dated 24.02.2022 written by the Minister of Department with the recommendation to continue the petitioners till their age of retirement.

¶48

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have no right to be continued in service or being regularized as they were the contractual employees working through a placement agency. It was merely by virtue of the order dated 01.09.2014 passed in the earlier writ petition that their services were continued. Learned counsel submitted that the directions as issued in the earlier writ petitions also implied that the petitioners were to be continued only till the regularly selected candidates are appointed. Now, as the regular recruitment process has been completed and regularly selected candidates are available with the Department, the petitioners cannot claim any right of continuance of services. Learned counsel further submitted that the similarly situated persons who were working as “man with machine” had also challenged their termination by way of a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5745/2018 (Devendra Singh Purawat Vs. State & Ors. and other connected matters). In those petitions also an application for vacation of the interim order was preferred by the State Department which was allowed and vide order dated 30.10.2019, the interim order passed in favour of the petitioners therein was vacated. The D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1479/2019 against the order dated 30.10.2019 was also dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2019. Learned counsel further submitted that the argument as raised by counsel for the petitioners that the State is under the process to

¶49

(5 of 6)

¶50

[CW-10330/2018]

¶51

regularize the services of the petitioners had also been argued and adjudicated in the matter of Devendra Singh Purawat’s case (supra). Learned counsel submitted that therefore, the said ground is no more available to the petitioners herein.

¶52

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶53

It is clear on record that the specific direction in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners in the year 2014 was that they would be continued till the process for regular selection is undertaken and completed by the State Department. It is not in dispute that the said process had been initiated in the year 2018 and has now been completed in the year 2022. It is also not in dispute that the present petitioners participated in the said process and did not succeed. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioners having once participated in the selection process and after failure thereof cannot claim any right to be continued or being regularized in services. Moreover, as held by the Division Bench in the case of Devendra Singh Purawat, the appellants were appointed on contractual basis and therefore, on availability of the regular recruited candidates their services were bound to be terminated. The Division Bench in Devendra Singh Purawat’s case observed as under:

¶54

“7. Indisputably, the appellant was appointed on contractual basis for the stipulated time or till the availability of regularly recruited employees. Obviously, on availability of the regularly recruited candidates, the appellant’s services were bound to be terminated. Admittedly, the appellant was recruited against the vacant posts existing in the year 2013 and it is not in dispute that the recruitment as against the vacancies of the year 2013 stand concluded. In this view of the matter, the existing vacancies having been filled in by way of regular recruitment, the appellant a contractual employee, cannot claim continuance in service as

¶55

(6 of 6)

¶56

[CW-10330/2018]

¶57

a matter of right. Obviously, the appellant has no claim against the posts created in the year 2017 and therefore, he cannot raise any grievance regarding the posts created in the year 2017 being filled in from amongst the candidates selected pursuant to the recruitment process initiated in the year 2013 and concluded in the year 2018. In any case, the respondents cannot be compelled to continue the appellant, a contractual employee in service, ignoring that the regular post against which he was working already stands filled in by way of regular recruitment.

¶58

8. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by us in exercise of intra court appeal jurisdiction.”

¶59

In view of the ratio as laid down in Devendra Singh Purawat’s case and in view of the fact that the petitioners have already participated in the fresh recruitment process and did not succeed, this Court is not inclined in interfering in the present petitions.

¶60

However, in view of the communication dated 24.02.2022 as mentioned above, it would be open for the petitioners to file a representation before the competent authority and the same may be considered sympathetically by the State Government keeping in view the period of 18 years of service put in by the petitioners.

¶61

With the above observations, the present petitions are disposed of.

¶62

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶63

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶64

82-84/T.Singh/-

Mukesh Kumar Khatik v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Khatik v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manroop Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Prem Chand Sharma Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Maksood Ahmed Vs State and Ors.

Aam Beema Seva Nivratt Karm. Samiti, Vs National Insurance Com.and Ors.

Subani Bano Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Dinesh Charan Vs the State of Rajasthan