Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 769 (RAJ)

Setu Parmar Sethi v. Govt. Of Rajasthan

2019-03-07

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents against replacement of petitioner with other contractual employee and to continue the petitioner to discharge her duties on her post. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that similar nature writ petitions were filed at Jaipur Bench, wherein, in Bhuvnesh Gautam & Ors. v. Principal Secretary Department of Skill Entrepreneurship & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8896/2016 & other connected matters, decided on 28.2.2019, the petitions have been dismissed and as the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the said judgment, the same also deserves to be dismissed. 3. In the case of Bhuvnesh Gautam (supra), the Bench at Jaipur inter alia laid down as under:- "21. While such a principle has been laid down to be correct, still the question arises whether original employment on contract has been given in accordance with law or not i.e. whether the selection process was adopted in consonance with transparency and fair play before making appointments on contract basis. The appointments made through placement agency resulted in candidates having been appointed by back door method who have been appointed without undergoing any selection. The administration and functioning of any State entity, if allowed to be handed by such employees, would result in causing administrative chaos and no-governance as they have no accountability. Sooner or later we may end up every appointment being made on contract basis and encourage situation where the people may start bidding for the posts in the State Government or its instrumentalities which would result in nothing but encouragement of corruption. Such concept would demolish the very basis of our India Constitution system. 22. In the present case, the petitioners were appointed through back door method by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and were working with the respondent No. 2 which is an instrumentality of the State. Their appointment was for a fixed term basis and the contract was exclusively with a private firm i.e. respondents No. 3 & 4. If the petitioners are allowed to continue, it would be encouraging back door method of appointment. While their term of appointment was ending in July, 2016, they have already continued upto now without facing any selection. Thus, the petitioners cannot be granted relief of continuing in employment. 23. If the petitioners are allowed to continue, it would be encouraging back door method of appointment. While their term of appointment was ending in July, 2016, they have already continued upto now without facing any selection. Thus, the petitioners cannot be granted relief of continuing in employment. 23. At the same time, in view of what has been state hereinabove, the RSLDC s restrained from engaging the persons for its various projects, through placement agency or service providers or any other nomenclature which it may so assign. 24. Ideally, respondents much frame rules or adopt the existing rules for employment in their corporation. However, if the respondent No. 2 wants to engage persons on contract basis i.e. a fixed salary for fixed term, they would be entitled to do so. However, if such a course is sought to be adopted, following directions would govern such selection: (a) The State Government or its instrumentalities shall to make appointments on the posts created under various schemes sponsored by State or by the Centre on contract basis or otherwise only by conducting selection through open advertisement and after inviting applications and conducting written examinations and selecting persons on merit basis by a transparent method. For the said purpose, the State Government may lay down procedure and a recruiting agency either department wise or a Central nodal agency may be created for the said purpose keeping in view the provisions laid down for conducting public examinations. However, there shall be no interviews method followed in order to avoid any room for arbitrariness or pick and choose method and subsequent litigation; (b) The merit of the candidates so prepared, shall be published showing the marks obtained by each candidate and after publishing the answer key; (c) In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mitendra Singh Rathore (SLP No. 32671/2013 decided on 17.02.2017), the State Government may provide additional bonus marks to those candidates who have prior working experience with the State Government or its instrumentalities. The bonus marks quantum should be on the basis of number of years of service already rendered by any contractual employee but the exact quantum may be decided by the Government while conducting selections for individual schemes/posts; (d) Every attempt should be made to see that the entire selection process is transparent and without any ambiguity; (e) If any selections are found to be wrongful, accountability of the concerned officials who have conducted selection must be necessarily fixed and action be taken under the relevant provisions of law against them; (f) Considering that such exercise would take some time to be implemented, this Court grants three months time to the Government to make such provisions from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order; 25. If the aforesaid course is not followed, the only other course available with the respondents would be to frame its own rules for making selections or adopt rules already framed by the State Government under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for its other departments and corporations and make selections thereto. The Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan shall be responsible for getting the orders of this court implemented. 26. In these circumstances, respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 6 will have no right or claim for continuing their employees with respondent No. 2. 27. The petitioners have no right to continue in employment with respondent No. 2 and their writ petitions are dismissed." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to distinguish the judgment in the case of Bhuvnesh Gautam (supra) in relation to the facts of the present case. 5. In view of the above fact situation, following the judgment in the case of Bhuvnesh Gautam (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 6. All the pending applications / stay applications also stand disposed of.