Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1181 (RAJ)

SHIV CHARAN MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-05-09

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2017
ORDER : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. The petitioner was working as a Driver with the respondents since 1st February, 2009. He has preferred this writ petition as suddenly without any basis and without any reasons his services have been dispensed with and another person has been appointed in his place to work as a driver with further direction to the petitioner to handover the charge to the new incumbent Laluram Meena by the impugned order dated 5.5.2015. 2. It is stated that no reasons have been assigned while relieving him of his duties. He had been working for almost six years with the respondents and there had not been any occasion of any delinquency on his part during his tenure. It is further stated that the regular recruitment process for the post of drivers has not been initiated and the petitioner who was working on adhoc basis with the respondents, could not have been replaced by another person on adhoc basis. A legal notice was also served upon the respondents by the petitioner. Thereafter, he has approached this Court. Notices were issued in the present petition. Reply has been filed. From the perusal of the reply, it is seen that no reasons have come forward to replace the petitioner by another contractual/adhoc person. It is also admitted position that regular selections for the post of drivers has not been proceeded further by the respondents. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is clearly illegal, unjustified and arbitrary. One set of contractual employees/adhoc employees could not have been replaced by another set of contractual/adhoc employees in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Md. Abdul Kadir & Anr v. Director General of Police, Assam (2009) 6 SCC 611 . This Court has also laid down this principle in several judgments which need not to be quoted. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents has not been able to deny the factual aspects as stated above. 5. Having looked into the record, it is seen that the action of the respondents in replacing the petitioner by another individual who was not selected through a regular method, is clearly unjustified. State Government and its authorities are required to follow rule of law. 5. Having looked into the record, it is seen that the action of the respondents in replacing the petitioner by another individual who was not selected through a regular method, is clearly unjustified. State Government and its authorities are required to follow rule of law. The order dated 5.5.2015 apparently is cryptic and does not give any reasons for removing the petitioner from his post of driver. Principles regarding replacement of one set of contractual employees by another being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is settled. Action is thus unjustified. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 05.05.2015 is quashed and set aside with direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service on the post which he was holding prior to passing of order dated 05.05.2015 and continue him till regular selections are made on the post of driver. Petitioner would be allowed to participate in the regular selection and being given bonus marks of experience which he had already gained in working with the State Government. He would be allowed to draw salary in the existing pay scales. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with cost quantified as Rs. 25,000/- to be recovered from the erring Officer who passed the order dated 5.5.2015 and same be paid to the petitioner. Compliance of this order be made within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.