1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi v. 1. Babita Kumari wife of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.438 of 2022 ---- 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 2. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. … … Appellants Versus 1. Babita Kumari wife of Shri Jai Mangal Das, resident of House No.G-H/6A, Near Gayatri Mandir, Sector-1, Dhurwa, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 3. 2. Pramod Manjhi son of Late Prahald Manjhi, resident of 355/B3, Dhumsa Toli, Ganpati Nagar, PO PS Chutia, District Ranchi. Tanushree Kumari wife of Sri Sanjay Kumar Tigga, resident of Parmarth Nagar, Tupudana, PO Hatia, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 4. Rakhee Khawas wife of Ratan Khawas, resident of Dwarikapuri, Bakayan Toli, PO PS Chutia, District Ranchi.
Legal Reasoning
5. Singh Anita wife of Sri Shashi Bhusan Singh, Resident of Q. No.H-129, Adarsh Nagar, Dhurwa, PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 6. Diksha Kumari daughter of Prabhu Nath Sah, resident of Ward No.7, Irrigation Colony, Ambedkar Chowk, Barmasia, PO Barmasia, PS and District Deoghar, at present residing at Kusai, PO PS Doranda, District Ranchi. 7. Sameer Kumar son of Late Laxmi Narayan Prasad, resident of H. No.53, Patel Nagar, Sector-1, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 8. Dev Kumar Thakur son of Sri Nirmal Thakur, resident of Indra Nagar, Jagarnathpur, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 9. Umesh Kumar son of Late Nageshwar Mahto, resident of Village Gesway, PO Chaingada, PS Burmu, District Ranchi. 10. The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 11. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Project Bhawan, HEC Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Appellants : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, GA I For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Ms. Ruhi Dubey, Advocate ---- 07/ 03.05.2023 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per Ananda Sen, J.)
Decision
O R D E R 1. This appeal has been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent of the High Court by the respondents-State challenging the order dated -: 2 :- 27.07.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.4682 of 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondents has been disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a fresh decision for regularisation in view of the observations made in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari versus State of Jharkhand reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 and also for extension of the contract period till regular appointments are made. 2. The writ petitioners/respondents had approached the Writ Court praying for (i) grant of extension to the petitioners in their service and not to terminate/disturb the service of the petitioners till the regular appointment is made by the respondent authorities; (ii) to allow the petitioners to continue on the respective posts as per terms and conditions of their engagement renewed from time to time; (iii) to grant extension of service to the petitioners in their service in the light of judgment passed by this Court in Chandreshwar Prasad Sharma Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. and other analogous cases passed in W.P.(S) No.3762 of 2015 along with other analogous cases; (iv) for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.05/vivid-14-99/2019/5367 Ranchi, dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure 18) passed by respondent No.3 in compliance of this Court’s Order, wherein respondent No.3 had rejected the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services; (v) to regularise the services of the petitioners who are working under respondent No.3 on the post of Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator and completed more than 10-12 years of service but the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their service in contravention of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal Nos.7423-7429 of 2018 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.19832-19838 of 2017 reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 and also order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.1513 of 2016 and other analogous cases; (vi) for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of judgments rendered by this Court in Pankaj Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. and other analogous cases passed in W.P.(S) No.6524 of 2017 along with other analogous cases and Ritesh Ranjan & Another Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., passed in W.P.(S) No.861 of 2011; (vii) to stay the operation of impugned order as contained in Memo No.05/vivid-14-99/2019/5367 Ranchi, dated 26.10.21 (Annexure 18) issued by respondent No.3 till the matter is subjudice before this Court. -: 3 :- 3. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and considering all aspects, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to take a fresh decision for regularisation in view of the observations made in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari versus State of Jharkhand reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 and also for extension of the contract period till regular appointments are made. 4. Learned counsel for the State-appellant submits that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the petitioners are not working and the petitioners have not challenged the scheme of engagement by outsourcing. He submits that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that there is no post of computer operator in the Department/State Government and there is no rule also. Further, the writ petitioners/respondents were working through Agency. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/ respondents submits that the writ petitioners/respondents have been working for a long period of time since their engagement in their respective departments. He further submits that learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated that the respondents have failed to show that the services of Data Entry / Computer Operators was not required and it is also an admitted fact that the respondents have engaged persons through different outsourcing agency. He submits that thus, learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of the writ petition in view of the observations made in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari versus State of Jharkhand reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238. 6. Admittedly, the writ petitioners were working as Data Entry cum Computer Operators over a period of time since their engagement in their respective departments. The initial engagement of the writ petitioners is also not questioned or any illegality/irregularity has been brought on record with respect to their engagement. Further, the respondents have also come out with a plea that if the writ petitioners approach through the other outsourcing agency, the respondents are ready to engage them, which suggests that the services of Data Entry cum Computer Operators are still required by the respondents. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Manish Gupta and Another versus President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 485 at paragraph 12 thereof, while referring to its judgment in the case of Rattan Lal versus State of Haryana reported in (1985) 4 SCC 43 and also in the case of Hargurpratap Singh versus State of Punjab reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292, has observed as under: - -: 4 :- 12. A perusal of the advertisement dated 24th June, 2016 issued by the Principal Government Kamla Raja Girls Post Graduate Autonomous College, Gwalior, which is at the Annexure P-2 of advertisement dated 2nd July, 2016 issued by the Principal, the Appeal Paper Book and SMS Government Model Science College, Gwalior, M.P., which is at Annexure P-3 of the Appeal Paper Book, would show that the appointments were to be made after the candidates had gone through due selection procedure. Though Shri Nataraj, learned ASG has strenuously urged that the appointments of the appellants were as guest lecturers and not as ad hoc employees, from the nature of the advertisements, it could clearly be seen that the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis. It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana and on the order of this Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab. 8. Thus, it is settled principle that an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee and he must be replaced by a regularly selected employee. 9. In view of the above discussion and the settled principle of law, we find no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal. The order dated 27.07.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.4682 of 2021 needs no interference. 10. This Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copies of this order shall be issued as per the Rules. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) Kumar/Cp-02 (Ananda Sen, J.)