The Jabalpur bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday dismissed the petition of contract employees seeking a direction to the state to continue them in service and to treat them as regular employees.
The petition, filed by Akram Jafri and others, prayed to reinstate them in service forthwith on regular basis treating them to be a duly selected candidate.
The case of the petitioners is that they were selected and appointed on the post of Stenographer-3 on contract basis in pursuance to the advertisement dated 07.10.2012. The petitioners were posted in various District Courts and their contract period was extended from time to time.
In the petition, it was alleged that similarly situated employees in other departments have been regularized or have been continued on contract basis but the services of the petitioners have been put to an end with effect from 29.09.2018.
Also Read: Justice NV Ramana: From humble beginnings to becoming the 48th Chief Justice of India
R.K. Sanghi, Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the appointment of the petitioners was after following due recruitment process, therefore, they were regular employees and their services ought to have been regularized. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of Yogesh Mahajan Vs. Professor R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, (2018) 3 SCC 218 and State of Jammu and Kashmir and others Vs. District Bar Association Bandipora, (2017) 3 SCC 410.
Piyush Dharmadhikari, counsel for the state, opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioners were contract employees and their services have been terminated, therefore, now no right exists in their favour.
The Division Bench of Justice Virender Singh and Justice Prakash Shrivastava while considering the Petition noted that that in the advertisement dated 19.08.2012 itself, it was made it clear that the appointment was on contract basis. The petitioners were appointed in pursuance to the advertisement dated 19.08.2012. In the said advertisement, it was also made clear that the claim for regularization will not be considered.
The Court further noted that some of the Writ Petitioners claiming the same relief of regularization in service was rejected by the High Court while passing the order dated 19.01.2016. “Taking note of the fact that the appointment was on contract basis and there is no scheme of regularization, therefore, the petitioners will be free to participate in the selection process when the posts are notified and applications are invited from public,” said the Court.
Also Read: Justice NV Ramana appointed next Chief Justice of India after President’s consent
The Bench cited the Judgement of Apex Court in State Bank of India and others Vs. S.N.Goyal, (2008) 8 SCC 92 where the Apex Court held that
“Where the relationship of master and servant is purely contractual, it is well settled that a contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable, having regard to the bar contained in Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Even if the termination of the contract of employment (by dismissal or otherwise) is found to be illegal or in breach, the remedy of the employee is only to seek damages and not specific performance. Courts will neither declare such termination to be a nullity nor declare that the contract of employment subsists nor grant the consequential relief of reinstatement.”
It was clarified by the Court that
“so far as the judgment in the matter of Yogesh Mahajan (supra) is concerned, in that case also it has been held that the contract employee has no right to have his contract renewed in absence of any statutory or other right in his favour and at best he can claim due consideration of extending his contract. He(Petitioner) has also placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter of State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra) but in that case also the direction of the High Court to the State Government in respect of regularization of the employees when various issues relating to their regularization remain undecided, has been found to be faulty and such a decision has been set aside by passing an order of remand.”
Therefore in light of above facts the court dismissed the petition observing that the petitioners were contract employees and in terms of their appointment itself they have no right of regularization and their services have already come to an end, as such no relief can be granted to the petitioners at this stage.