Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 811 (RAJ)

Navneet Kumar Upadhyay v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-17

DINESH MEHTA

body2025
Order 1. The matter comes up for consideration of application (I.A.No.01/2020) filed under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of the interim relief which has been granted by this Court on 25.02.2020 in light of order passed in the case of Kishan Singh Gurjar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1888/2020. 2. While submitting that the interim order in the instant case has been passed on the basis of interim order passed in the case of Kishan Singh Gurjar (supra), Mr. Parvat Singh Panwar, learned counsel for the applicant – State informed that the said writ petition has been dismissed on 09.10.2023 as having become infructuous. 3. Arguing on the merit of the case, learned counsel stated that the petitioners, when appointed on the post of Lab Technician on urgent temporary basis, did not have registration with the Rajasthan Paramedical Council and therefore, the State refused to extend their contract once the Rajasthan Medical Education Society Jaipur Personnel’s (Recruitment And Other Conditions) Employment Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RAJMES Rules, 2017’) came to be amended by the enactment of Rajasthan Medical Education Society Jaipur Personnel’s (Recruitment And Other Conditions) Employment Rules, (Amendment) Rules, 2018, with effect from 26.03.2018. 4. Mr. Parvat Singh, learned Government counsel argued that when the amendments in the RAJMES Rules, 2017 were brought into force, the requirement of having registration with the Rajasthan Paramedical Council has been made mandatory and since the petitioners did not have registration with the Rajasthan Paramedical Council, their engagement was liable to be canceled. He argued that the interim order dated 25.02.2020 deserves to be vacated. 5. Mr. Vivek Firoda, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 11.12.2017, which did not require registration with the Rajasthan Paramedical Council. He further argued that an amendment which has been introduced in the year 2018 cannot be applied retrospectively so as to take away petitioners’ right to continue with the respondent – Department. 6. Mr. He further argued that an amendment which has been introduced in the year 2018 cannot be applied retrospectively so as to take away petitioners’ right to continue with the respondent – Department. 6. Mr. Parvat Singh, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, argued that the petitioners were appointed on urgent temporary basis pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 11.12.2017, which was initially for a period of six months and was extended from time to time; but once an amendment was introduced in the RAJMES Rules, 2017 and requirement of having registration with the Rajasthan Paramedical Council has been made mandatory, the petitioners cannot claim their continuation as a matter of right. 7. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 06.03.2025, learned Government counsel produced the status of the petitioners involved in the present writ petition and submitted that petitioner No.3 - Mohammed Asif Pathan alone is having registration with the Rajasthan Paramedical Council and that too with effect from 18.11.2022. He further stated that the petitioner No.3 was engaged on urgent temporary basis on the basis of his diploma obtained from Para Medical Science and Research Organization, issued on 15.04.2013. Whereafter, he had obtained another diploma from Maharana Pratap Institute of Paramedical Science and Technology, Chittorgarh, on 11.11.2022 which was duly recognized and on the basis of such diploma course, he got himself registered with Rajasthan Paramedical Council on 18.11.2022. 8. Mr. Firoda, learned counsel for the petitioners, at this juncture, submitted that since the petitioner No.3 has got himself registered with Paramedical Council with effect from 18.11.2022 and he has continued with the respondents, his contractual engagement be saved, in case the Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioners on the ground of not having registration with the Rajasthan Paramedical Council. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. Indisputably, the petitioners were firstly engaged as Lab Technicians on urgent temporary basis pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 11.12.2017. On the date of their engagement, there was no requirement of having registration with the Rajasthan Paramedical Council. But then, the RAJMES Rules, 2017 came to be amended, with effect from 23.06.2018 and registration with Rajasthan Paramedical Council has been made compulsory by way of introducing amendment in clause (2) of Schedule-I. 11. This Court is not much convinced by the argument of Mr. But then, the RAJMES Rules, 2017 came to be amended, with effect from 23.06.2018 and registration with Rajasthan Paramedical Council has been made compulsory by way of introducing amendment in clause (2) of Schedule-I. 11. This Court is not much convinced by the argument of Mr. Firoda, learned counsel for the petitioners that the amendment which has been brought into force vide notification dated 26.03.2018 cannot be applied retrospecitvely to the petitioners, who were engaged prior to such amendment. 12. According to this Court, the petitioners’ appointment/engagement was on urgent temporary basis for a period of six months and the same was extended from time to time until issuance of the communications dated 13.01.2020 and 16.01.2020. By way of these communications, the candidates were asked to produce their certificates of registration with the Rajasthan Paramedical Council. 13. Once the period of original contract is over, the renewal or renovation of contract has to be determined on the basis of the provisions prevailing on the date of such renovation. After the completion of original period and the extended period, if the contract in question is required to be extended, then, the educational qualifications and other eligibility conditions must be fulfilled as per the statue/rules, prevailing on the date of such extension. 14. This Court is, therefore, of clear opinion that as soon as the period of original engagement or the extended period of engagement is over, engagement can be renewed only if the concerned candidate possesses requisite qualification - educational or otherwise, as prevalent on the date of such renewal. 15. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the communications dated 13.01.2020 and 16.01.2020 which have been impugned by the petitioners. 16. This Court does not find any substance in the argument of Mr. Firoda that the respondents are applying the amended provisions retrospectively. There is no retrospectivity as claimed by the petitioners, since the prior term of engagement has expired and fresh term of engagement would be governed by relevant rules as existing on that date. 17. In the case of Yogesh Mahajan Vs. R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 218 , Honble the Supreme Court has taken a similar view, in the matter of contractual engagement. 17. In the case of Yogesh Mahajan Vs. R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 218 , Honble the Supreme Court has taken a similar view, in the matter of contractual engagement. The relevant part is being reproduced hereinfra:- “It is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. That being so, we are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was unable to show any statutory or other right to have his contract extended beyond 30th June, 2010. At best, the petitioner could claim that the concerned authorities should consider extending his contract. We find that in fact due consideration was given to this and in spite of a favourable recommendation having been made, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences did not find it appropriate or necessary to continue with his services on a contractual basis. We do not find any arbitrariness in the view taken by the concerned authorities and therefore reject this contention of the petitioner.” 18. The writ petition is therefore dismissed qua petitioner Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. 19. So far as petitioner Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are concerned as stated by Mr. Firoda, they have already been engaged/appointed in other recruitment, hence, no adjudication is required to be made qua them. 20. Petitioner No.3 – Mohammed Asif Pathan has somewhat different case - he has got himself registered with the Rajasthan Paramedical Council on 18.11.2022. He fulfills the required eligibility conditions. Hence, writ petition qua him is allowed. 21. It is to be noted that pursuant to the interim order dated 25.02.2020 passed by this Court, the petitioner Nos.2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have continued so far. The respondents shall continue these petitioners until their existing contracts subsist. Thereafter, the petitioners (except petitioner No.3) shall not be continued. 22. These petitioners (petitioner Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) shall be entitled for experience certificates for the period upto 28.02.2020 – since a window of 45 days was allowed by the respondents vide communications dated 13.01.2020 and 16.01.2020 and had the interim order was not granted by this Court, the services of the petitioners would have been terminated after completion of 45 days’ notice period. 23. 23. So far as petitioner No.3 - Mohammed Asif Pathan is concerned, since he has obtained registration with the Rajasthan Paramedical Council on 18.11.2022, he shall be entitled for experience certificate from the date of his first engagement upto 28.02.2020 and thereafter from 18.11.2022 until he continues with the engagement. 24. As a word of caution, it is hereby iterated that the petitioner No.3 shall be substituted only by a regularly recruited employee and not by another contractual employee. 25. The petitioners have also prayed that the respondents be restrained from recovering the amount paid to the petitioners, on account of difference in salary in terms of Schedule-VII and Schedule-V of the RAJMES Rules, 2017 – it is noteworthy that Schedule-V deals with the salary of probationer trainee while Schedule-VII provides salary payable to non-teaching staff. 26. According to this Court, since the State has paid the amount to the petitioners without there being any misrepresentation made by them, the amount cannot be recovered. Hence, without deciding the issue of petitioners’ entitlement of honorarium as per Schedule-V or Schedule-VII of the RAJMES Rules, 2017, it is hereby declared that the State cannot recover the alleged excess payment of Rs.800/- per month, as the same was paid to the petitioners by the respondents without there being any misrepresentation. 27. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.