SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two appeals bearing LPA Nos. 2369 and 2372 of 2017 against the decision dated 22.11.2017 passed in CWP Nos. 522 and 223 of 2015. For brevity, facts are being taken from LPA No. 2369 of 2017. Learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition challenging advertisement dated 30.12.2014 for the post of Accountant on contract basis on the ground that a contractual employee could not be replaced by another contractual employee.

(2.) Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that the writ petitioner was appointed as Accountant on contractual basis on D.C. Rates w.e.f. 24.12013 for a period of six months or till the date of filling up of regular vacancies whichever was earlier. As per Clause-2 of the appointment letter, the appointment was terminable at any time without any notice on either side. Initially, contractual appointment of the petitioner was renewed on 20.6.2014, w.e.f 24.7.2014 for a further period of six months or till regular appointments were made whichever was earlier. In terms of renewal, the appointment of the writ petitioner was to continue till 23.1.2015. However, prior to said date, advertisement dated 30.12014 was issued for the post of Accountant on contractual basis leading to the filing of the writ petition out of which this intra-court appeal arises. Apart from challenge to the advertisement on the ground that contractual employee could not be replaced by another contractual employee particularly when the services of the petitioners were satisfactory, other grievance was that dispensing with the services of the petitioner keeping in view the certificates dated 21.10.2014 and 05.05.2015 was not justified.

(3.) The respondents, on the other hand, took up the stand that contract had been signed with the institution on 24.1.2014 in terms of condition No. 7 in the appointment letter and as per the terms of the contract, services of the petitioner could be dispensed with at any time without assigning any reason whatsoever and without any notice. The petitioner had been relieved from duty w.e.f. 24.12.2014 on completion of approximately 11 months and that the same was in consonance with the terms and conditions of the appointment letter and the contract. Besides, Chief Accounts Officer had, vide letter dated 24.12.2014 reported that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not upto the mark/good, therefore, the writ petitioner services were no longer required. Certain irregularities in respect of pay bills/TA/DA/as well as overpayment and financial loss to the State had been found. Reliance was placed upon communication dated 14.02015 in support of the plea that the petitioner had been found responsible for gross negligence, serious irregularities, dereliction of duties, non-maintenance of essential financial records in respect of over payment of L 1,49,750/- on account of arrears of pay/salary from October 2013 to February 2014 to Smt. Sajjni, Staff Nurse along with other writ petitioner. Besides, the fact that both the petitioners had been relieved from duty, had been concealed from the Court. Hence, decision of the Division Bench in CWP No. 5289 of 2007 (Ashok Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others), decided on 24.01.2008 relied upon by the petitioners was distinguishable.