1 - Gajanand Sahu S/o Late Shri Moti Ram Sahu, Aged About 51 Years v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mahanadi
Case Details
1 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.01.20 17:19:37 +0530 2025:CGHC:2589 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4536 of 2024 1 - Gajanand Sahu S/o Late Shri Moti Ram Sahu, Aged About 51 Years R/o Sidhi Vinayak Colony, Kailash Pati Nagar, Rudri Road, Dhamtari, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Post Office And Police Station Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, Directorate Of Women And Child Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - State Child Protection Committee, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner For Respondents/State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G.A. : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 15/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the rejection of his candidature for the post of Social Worker (Juvenile Justice Board) vide order dated 21/08/2024 Annexure P-1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's candidature has been rejected on the ground that on the intimation of District Project Officer, as the petitioner was removed from the service by the Child Welfare Committee. He submits that when the petitioner was discontinued from the post of District Child Protection Officer vide order dated 22/09/2020, a WPS No.4917/2020 was filed questioning the same. In the said writ petition, the respondents/State filed their reply contending that the authority has not extended the contract further and there is no illegality or arbitrariness in it because the inter se relation between the petitioner and the authority is purely on contractual in nature. The contractual appointment of the petitioner was till 31/03/2020 and after expiry to the said contractual period, the contractual appointment of the petitioner has automatically come to an end after 31/03/2020. The petitioner further submits that in the said reply, the respondents/State also stated that the order dated 22/09/2020 is not a stigmatic order. However, though the stand
Decision
has been taken in the writ petition i.e. WPS No.4917/2020 that 3 the order dated 22/09/2020, which was passed by the respondent is stated to be a discontinuation of contractual assignment and the order was not stigmatic but still the application of the petitioner for the post of the Social Worker has been rejected on the ground of removal from the post of Child Protection Officer. Hence, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is bad in law and the contrary to the stand taken by the respondent in reply filed in WPS No.4917/2020 before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 21/08/2024, by which, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected is not only for the removal of the petitioner from the post of Child Protection Officer, whereas the rejection is because of irregularities committed by the petitioner while he was discharging the post of Child Protection Officer under the Child Welfare Committee. Hence, there is no illegality in rejection of the petitioner’s candidature. 4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 5. From perusal of record, it appears that the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 21/08/2024 is an order, by which, the candidature of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that the petitioner has been removed from the post of Child Protection Officer from Child Welfare Committee, Balod and there is no reflection in the order that because of any irregularities committed 4 by the petitioner, his candidature has been rejected. Hence, it appears that the rejection is only because the petitioner has been discontinued from service of Child Protection Officer in Child Welfare Committee. The respondents/State in the reply submitted in the WPS No.4917/2020 taken stand which reads as follows:- “8. It is respectfully submitted that by a bare perusal of Annexure P/1 it is clear that the authority has not extended the contract further and there is no illegality or arbitrariness in it because the inter-se relation between the petitioner and the authority is purely of a contractual in nature. It is respectfully submitted that the contractual appointment of the petitioner was till 31/03/2020 and after expiry to the said contractual period, the contractual appointment of the petitioner has automatically come to an end after 31/03/2020 whereas the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on 09/11/2020 i.e. after expiry of his contractual appointment. It is humbly submitted that while ordering for non extension of the contract, the authorities have bound to put the reasons for that purpose or otherwise in absence of that it could have been open to challenge by the petitioner as unreasoned and arbitrary. Now when 5 the reasons are given by the authorities as in the present case, the same is compelled to disclose the adverse features of employee and such discloser will not be a ground of challenge in favour of the petitioner, that order is not innocuous and stigmatic in nature. It is respectfully submitted that, in its various pronouncements, this Hon'ble Court has held that the contractual appointee does not have any indefeasible right as the substantive nature of appointment was that of a contractual employee. Hence, since the contractual appointee have no indefeasible right, then the said contractual appointee like the petitioner cannot claim for further extension which is the sole discretion of the employer 9. It is further respectfully submitted that the contractual period of the petitioner have not been extended or renewed further by invoking the provisions contained in Rule 15(3) of the Rules, 2012. It is submitted that the works performed by the petitioner had been duly assessed by the answering respondents and since in the inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of financial 6 irregularity, therefore, it was thought appropriate to not to extend or renew the contractual period of the petitioner and accordingly the impugned order dated 22/09/2020 (Annexure P/1) has been issued which is just, proper and legal and does not suffer form any illegality and infirmity.” 6. On perusal of aforesaid reply, it appears that the petitioner's service has been discontinued from the post of Child Protection Officer only because the contractual appointment of the petitioner was till 31/03/2020 and the expiry of the said contractual period, the contractual appointment of the petitioner has automatically come to an end after 31/03/2020. It has been clearly contended by the respondent/State that the order of discontinuation is not a stigmatic order and hence, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Social Worker in (Juvenile Justice Board) is liable to be and is hereby quashed. The respondents/State are directed to take a fresh steps for appointment to the post of Social Worker (Juvenile Justice Board). 7. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep