Citation
WP(S) No.861 of 2011 in IA 1704 of 2011 Ritesh Ranjan and others Vs.State of Jharkand
Judgement
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 861 of 2011
With
I.A. No. 1704 of 2011
Ritesh Ranjan & another Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & ors. Respondents
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha,
Advocate
For the RespondentState
: J.C. to Sr. S.C.I
For Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 : None
04/Dated: 1 st August, 2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are
working as Lecturers on contractual basis since December 2006. They are
working honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the
respondents. Never any notice has been given to the petitioners for their
unsatisfactory work. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied
upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC
2130 and submitted that one adhoc employee cannot be replaced by another
adhoc employee. The petitioners are appointed on contractual basis and now
the respondents are terminating the services of the petitioners and the
petitioners are replacing by appointing other lot of similarly situated
contractual employee/Lecturer. Experienced hand teacher will go away and the
fresh lot of Lecturers will be appointed. This will also cause loss to the students
for whom the University has been established.
2. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that out of the
total contractual basis Lecturers, the petitioners' services are going to be
terminated, whereas, 27 similarly situated contractual basis Lecturers are going
to be appointed by the respondents. This fact has been highlighted in
paragraph 20 of the memo of the petition. Thus, there is discrimination of the
petitioners from the similarly situated other candidates.
3. Learned counsel for the respondentState has nothing much to submit
because contesting respondents are respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5.
4. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 is absent.
5. There is, prima facie, a case in favour of the present petitioners as they are
working on contractual basis as Lecturers since December 2006. Moreover,
2similarly situated other contractual basis Lecturers, who are 27 in number, are
going to be retained by the respondentUniversity. Moreover, looking to the
the present petitioners. If any new ground is emerging, like the misconduct etc.,
then, the respondents are permitted to hold an enquiry and take a legal action,
permissible under the law, but, the termination will be done by the permission
of this Court. If the respondents find any difficulty, they are at liberty to move
an Interlocutory Application in the pending writ petition.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and the decisions and also looking to the
contentious issues raised in this writ petition, Rule.
8. Rule is made returnable on 17th October, 2012.
9. Meanwhile, I hereby direct the respondents and their servants and officers
to retain the services of the present petitioners. If any new ground is found like
misconduct etc., the respondents are permitted to hold inquiry and take legal
action, but, the termination will be done with prior permission of this Court. If
the respondents find any difficulty, they are at liberty to move before this Court
by filing a fresh interlocutory application in this pending writ petition.
10. Registry is directed to enlist this matter under the heading For Hearing
on 17th October, 2012.
11. I.A. No. 1704 of 2011 is, accordingly, disposed of.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
Ajay