Single Judge's dismissal of writ petition against termination of two dairy federation employees was dismissed. Court held regular appointment after selection, pay scales, and increments prove substantive capacity, not contract employment.
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.
[2023/RJJP/001498]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1221/2019
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2798/1997
----Non-Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
----Petitioenrs/Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Manu Bhargava Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Judgment
03/02/2023
Heard on admission.
Learned counsel for the State would argue that learned Single Judge committed gross illegality in holding that the respondents were appointed on regular basis in substantive capacity whereas their appointments were only for limited period on contract basis.
(2 of 2)
[2023/RJJP/001498]
[SAW-1221/2019]
We find that the order of learned Single Judge proceeds on the nature of appointment followed by due selection under Advertisement dated 13.06.1991. Neither in the advertisement, nor during the process of selection and not even in the order of appointment, it has been stipulated that the appointments were being made on contract basis during the life of any project. The appointment order clearly states that it was regular appointment after due process of selection on regular basis. The appointment continued and regular pay scales were granted followed by grant of increments also. Impugned order of termination passed on 06.05.1997 wrongly declared the regularly selected candidates in substantive capacity as contract employees.
Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.
The appeal has no merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J
MANOJ NARWANI /1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge correctly held that the respondents were appointed on a regular substantive basis rather than on a limited contract basis.
Whether the termination order wrongly classified regularly selected candidates as contract employees.
The State of Rajasthan
Sunita Tak
Maya Chouhan
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
GANESH RAM MEENA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
