Naveen Gehlot and anr Vs. State and ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1163008
CourtRajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided OnAug-21-2014
AppellantNaveen Gehlot and anr
RespondentState and ors
Excerpt:
s. b. civil writ petition no.1357/2014 naveen gehlot & ors. vs. state of rajasthan & ors. order dated 21/08/2014 1/5 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur order s.b. civil writ petition no.1357/2014 naveen gehlot & ors. vs. state of rajasthan & ors. date of order ::21. t august, 2014 present hon'ble dr. justice vineet kothari appearance: none present for the petitioners. by the court:1. the lawyers are observing strike contrary to various hon'ble supreme court decisions.2. none is present on behalf of petitioners, though name of mr. sunil kachhawaha, counsel for the petitioner is shown in the cause list. the case is listed at serial no.14 in the today's cause under the category 'for fresh admission with stay'.3. the petitioners have preferred this writ petition in this court on 19.02.2014 seeking following relief(s): - “it is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and: (a) the order dated 27.01.2014 annexure.p/7 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) the respondents may kindly be further directed to allow the petitioners to work on the post of computer operator mdny scheme till the availability s. b. civil writ petition no.1357/2014 naveen gehlot & ors. vs. state of rajasthan & ors. order dated 21/08/2014 2/5 of the scheme or till the availability of the regularly selected candidates to replace them. (c) the respondents may kindly be further directed to increase the salary of the petitioners by considering the representation submitted by them. (d) any other appropriate writ order or direction, this hon'ble court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.”. 4. perused the record.5. the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a recent decision of this court rendered in the case of ashok godara vs. state of rajasthan & ors. (s.b.c.w.p. no.3503/2014 decided on 22.05.2014), wherein while dealing with the case in relation to computer operators, this court held as under:-“11. as far as the question of giving mandamus direction to the state to continue the petitioners in contractual employment beyond 30/4/2014 is concerned, this court is of the considered opinion that such a mandamus direction cannot be given. it is within the domain and discretion of the state government to extend the contractual term upto the period, which they think proper looking to their requirements, availability of posts, availability of financial sanction & approval from the state govt. under free medical aid scheme by the central government for nrhm under which the said projects are continuing. there is no material placed on record by the petitioners that without the employment of petitioner on contractual basis, the state s. b. civil writ petition no.1357/2014 naveen gehlot & ors. vs. state of rajasthan & ors. order dated 21/08/2014 3/5 government would not be able to run these ddcs under the chief minister's free medical aid scheme, which undoubtedly is continuing even after the change of government after legislative assembly elections in 2013. the administrative structure required for manning such ddcs is within the control of the state & the state has already held regular selection process for pharmacists & the information assistants in recent past. it may do so even now for remaining posts as sanctioned by the state.12. it is true that after continuing for 3-4 years, the discharge of contract of employment causes dislocation and renders the persons like the petitioners unemployed and certainly causes financial loss and prejudices to them but this court finds no legal foundation and basis for directing the state to continue the petitioners on contractual employment beyond the date of expiry of the contract itself. the state in the present case is not seeking to replace one set of contractual employees by another set of contractual employees, which as an unfair practice could be injuncted against by this court. here the state has decided to simply continue only those pharmacists employed through rmrs that too against 423 posts vide order annex.r/1 dated 16/5/2014 till the regular selection process for such posts of pharmacists is held by the state. from the reply of the state government, quoted above, it is clear that the final decision has been taken by the respondent state in this regard. the justification for restricting the continuance of s. b. civil writ petition no.1357/2014 naveen gehlot & ors. vs. state of rajasthan & ors. order dated 21/08/2014 4/5 pharmacists employed only through rmrs also cannot be said to be unreasonable & hit by any invidious classification so as to be violative of article 14 of the constitution of india. the petitioner ashok godara, who was employed through other placement agency, of course with the authority of the state at the time of recruitment given to jodhpur upbhokta wholesale bhandar ltd. but he , cannot claim that extension of contractual employment to the persons employed through rmrs creates any unreasonable classification, which is hit by article 14 of the constitution of india. it appears to be a reasonable classification and that too under a temporary arrangement made by the state till the respondent state holds the regular selection process for these 423 posts of pharmacists as per the communication annex.r/1 dated 16/5/2014.“13. the contention of the learned counsels for the petitioner that for the post of helpers, no decision has been taken by the state government is also belied by the reply filed by the respondent state that the extension of term of helpers was upto april, 2014 and, “thereafter, the financial approval and sanction for the post of helper is not granted”.. this averment made in reply by the state government has not been controverted and there is no document to the contrary placed on record, therefore, the court cannot presume that no decision was taken by the state with regard to the post of helpers.14. as far as computer operators are concerned, there is no dispute that with a different name and s. b. civil writ petition no.1357/2014 naveen gehlot & ors. vs. state of rajasthan & ors. order dated 21/08/2014 5/5 designation known as “information assistants”. the regular selection process has already been held by the state government in the year 2013 and since the regularly selected persons or information assistants became available for the post of computer operators, some of the present petitioners, who are computer operators, cannot claim any preferential right over the regularly selected and appointed computer operators/information assistants.15. this court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that present set of writ petitions do not have any merit & deserve to be dismissed and no mandamus direction can be given to the respondent state to extend the term of contractual employment of the pharmacists employed through agencies other than rmrs, computer operators and helpers working in the various ddcs, run and operated by the state government under the chief minister's free medical aid scheme.16. consequently, the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. no costs. copy of the order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.”. 6. accordingly, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms. no costs. a copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. (dr. vineet kothari), j.dj/- 14
Judgment:

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1357/2014 Naveen Gehlot & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 21/08/2014 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1357/2014 Naveen Gehlot & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER

::

21. t August, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Appearance: None present for the petitioners. BY THE COURT:

1. The lawyers are observing strike contrary to various Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions.

2. None is present on behalf of petitioners, though name of Mr. Sunil Kachhawaha, counsel for the petitioner is shown in the cause list. The case is listed at serial No.14 in the today's cause under the category 'for fresh admission with stay'.

3. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition in this Court on 19.02.2014 seeking following relief(s): - “It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and: (a) The order dated 27.01.2014 Annexure.P/7 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) The respondents may kindly be further directed to allow the petitioners to work on the post of computer operator MDNY Scheme till the availability S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1357/2014 Naveen Gehlot & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 21/08/2014 2/5 of the scheme or till the availability of the regularly selected candidates to replace them. (c) The respondents may kindly be further directed to increase the salary of the petitioners by considering the representation submitted by them. (d) any other appropriate writ order or direction, this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.”. 4. Perused the record.

5. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a recent decision of this Court rendered in the case of Ashok Godara Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No.3503/2014 decided on 22.05.2014), wherein while dealing with the case in relation to Computer Operators, this Court held as under:-

“11. As far as the question of giving mandamus direction to the State to continue the petitioners in contractual employment beyond 30/4/2014 is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that such a mandamus direction cannot be given. It is within the domain and discretion of the State Government to extend the contractual term upto the period, which they think proper looking to their requirements, availability of posts, availability of financial sanction & approval from the State Govt. under Free Medical Aid Scheme by the Central Government for NRHM under which the said projects are continuing. There is no material placed on record by the petitioners that without the employment of petitioner on contractual basis, the State S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1357/2014 Naveen Gehlot & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 21/08/2014 3/5 Government would not be able to run these DDCs under the Chief Minister's Free Medical Aid Scheme, which undoubtedly is continuing even after the change of Government after Legislative Assembly Elections in 2013. The administrative structure required for manning such DDCs is within the control of the State & the State has already held regular selection process for Pharmacists & the Information Assistants in recent past. It may do so even now for remaining posts as sanctioned by the State.

12. It is true that after continuing for 3-4 years, the discharge of contract of employment causes dislocation and renders the persons like the petitioners unemployed and certainly causes financial loss and prejudices to them but this Court finds no legal foundation and basis for directing the State to continue the petitioners on contractual employment beyond the date of expiry of the contract itself. The State in the present case is not seeking to replace one set of contractual employees by another set of contractual employees, which as an unfair practice could be injuncted against by this Court. Here the State has decided to simply continue only those Pharmacists employed through RMRS that too against 423 posts vide order Annex.R/1 dated 16/5/2014 till the regular selection process for such posts of Pharmacists is held by the State. From the reply of the State Government, quoted above, it is clear that the final decision has been taken by the respondent State in this regard. The justification for restricting the continuance of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1357/2014 Naveen Gehlot & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 21/08/2014 4/5 Pharmacists employed only through RMRS also cannot be said to be unreasonable & hit by any invidious classification so as to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner Ashok Godara, who was employed through other placement agency, of course with the authority of the State at the time of recruitment given to Jodhpur Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd. but he , cannot claim that extension of contractual employment to the persons employed through RMRS creates any unreasonable classification, which is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It appears to be a reasonable classification and that too under a temporary arrangement made by the State till the respondent State holds the regular selection process for these 423 posts of Pharmacists as per the communication Annex.R/1 dated 16/5/2014.

“13. The contention of the learned counsels for the petitioner that for the post of Helpers, no decision has been taken by the State Government is also belied by the reply filed by the respondent State that the extension of term of Helpers was upto April, 2014 and, “thereafter, the financial approval and sanction for the post of Helper is not granted”.. This averment made in reply by the State Government has not been controverted and there is no document to the contrary placed on record, therefore, the Court cannot presume that no decision was taken by the State with regard to the post of Helpers.

14. As far as Computer Operators are concerned, there is no dispute that with a different name and S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1357/2014 Naveen Gehlot & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 21/08/2014 5/5 designation known as “Information Assistants”. the regular selection process has already been held by the State Government in the year 2013 and since the regularly selected persons or Information Assistants became available for the post of Computer Operators, some of the present petitioners, who are Computer Operators, cannot claim any preferential right over the regularly selected and appointed Computer Operators/Information Assistants.

15. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that present set of writ petitions do not have any merit & deserve to be dismissed and no mandamus direction can be given to the respondent State to extend the term of contractual employment of the Pharmacists employed through agencies other than RMRS, Computer Operators and Helpers working in the various DDCs, run and operated by the State Government under the Chief Minister's Free Medical Aid Scheme.

16. Consequently, the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. No costs. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.”. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

DJ/- 14