GAURAV VISHWAKERMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking substantial relief stated in paragraph 10.1 as under :

(2.) The claim of the petitioner is that, they were appointed as Lecturer on contract basis for the first time on 7/9/2009 and 3/3/2010 respectively and since then they continuously worked as contractual Lecturer till 2013 with break, in between. Subsequently, their appointment on contractual basis again got renewed at regular intervals on completion of the previous contractual period with break in between the two contracts.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that they have been continuously working with the respondents for a period of almost six years, therefore, now the respondents may consider their case for grant of benefit of absorption/regularization in service. According to the petitioners, since they have been appointed by the respondents after following a due process of law, therefore, it cannot be said that their appointment was back door entry and therefore they are eligible for regularization in service. Their cases should have been considered for regularization, but the respondents have not considered their case in this regard. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners were engaged in service at the time of when the institution was facing acute shortage of regular Lecturers in the Technical Education Department. In the light of acute shortage of Lecturers, the State Government themselves had issued a circular taking a policy decision of appointing part time and Contractual Lecturer and it was after following a due process of selection that the petitioners were selected and appointed on the said post. Therefore, considering the service rendered by the petitioners, the respondents may be directed to consider regularization of the petitioners.