Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1173 (RAJ)

Pooja Chaturvedi v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-04-11

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the direction dated 29.03.2022 and letter dated 31.03.2022 and a direction has also been sought to the respondents to reinstate the services of the petitioners on their respective posts of Research Assistant, Senior Lab Technician and Lab Technicians, with all consequent benefits. 2. The petitioners were engaged through placement agencies pursuant to Government order dated 30.05.2020 (Annex.2). On 31.03.2022, order (Annex.6) was passed, based on the communication received from the State Government that those who are working in COVID-19 RT-PCR Testing Laboratory, appointed through placement agencies, will not be required anymore after 31.03.2022. The communication dated 29.03.2022, inter-alia, indicated that hiring of the contractual has not been permitted by the Government of India after 31.03.2022 and therefore, their services shall stand terminated after 31.03.2022 and that the arrangements be made posting sufficient staff from the available staff (other than contractual employees) in the established COVID-19 testing RT-PCR laboratories for smooth functioning of the labs. The petitioners made representation requiring extension of their services. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners on 31.03.2022, by indicating that facility of COVID-19 Testing RT-PCR Labs may be continued with available staff, is not justified. Submissions have been made that the work is available with the respondents and therefore, the action of the respondents in providing for taking the same from the available staff, which is already deficient, is not justified and therefore, the respondents be directed to accord extension to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel further emphasized that though the indication made is that the work should be taken from the available staff, the respondents are likely to appoint other contractual employees through placement agencies and therefore also, the action on the part of the respondents, needs to be interfered with. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record. 6. The engagement of the petitioners, was through placement agencies and there was no indication made that the same would continue till a particular point of time. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record. 6. The engagement of the petitioners, was through placement agencies and there was no indication made that the same would continue till a particular point of time. The respondents, based on their requirement and coming to the conclusion that as the hiring of the contractual manpower was not permitted by the Government of India after 31.03.2022, has decided to terminate the services of the petitioners and required that the laboratories be manned by sufficient staff from the available staff. The prerogative of the respondents in deciding as to whether to continue with the contractual employees for rendering a particular kind of services or not, cannot be questioned. 7. The respondents are required to take decision based on several factors and have indicated that once the Government of India has not permitted the hiring of contractual manpower for the purpose, the decision taken by the respondents, cannot be faulted and/or the respondents cannot be directed to continue with contractual employment of the petitioners. 8. So far as the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that despite the indication made regarding non-hiring of the contractual manpower, after termination of petitioners' engagement, new contractual employees would be engaged, cannot be countenanced at this stage, as once the specific indication has been made that on account of non-permitting of the contractual manpower, existing contractual manpower is being terminated, there does not appear to be any reason for the said apprehension expressed by the petitioners. 9. In that view of the matter, no case for interference in the petition is made out. The same has no substance and the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.