HARNEK SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has prayed mainly the following relief:

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed as Instructor (Welder) on 23.10.2000 on contract basis with Respondent No. 3 on consolidated salary of ' 3344/-per month for a period of 89 days. The contract of the Petitioner was renewed for 89 days on consolidated salary of ' 5480/- . The contract of the Petitioner was lastly revised for 89 days on 28.1.2002. The respondents terminated the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 26.4.2002 on completion of 89 days vide order dated 23.4.2002. On receiving the termination order dated 23.4.2002, the Petitioner met the competent authority and represented for renewal of his contract. The Petitioner was assured that he will be re-engaged as Instructor (Welder) on contract basis when the post of Instructor (Welder) will be filled in on contract basis.

(3.) The Petitioner vide communication dated 29.8. 2002 was called for interview in the office of Respondent No. 2 on 5.9.2002 for the post of Instructor (Welder), but Petitioner was not given appointment as Instructor (Welder). It is the stand of the Petitioner that as per the Handbook on Personnel Matters under Chapter 16, the appointment has been defined under para 16.35 which provides that any appointment which is not made in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules will be 'adhoc'. The Respondents under the garb of 'contract appointment' instead of 'adhoc appointment' cannot be allowed to introduce the policy of hire and fire. The stipulation contained in the offer of appointment that appointment would be terminated on completion of 89 days is un-reasonable and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The 'contract appointment' in substance is 'adhoc appointment' and once 'adhoc appointment' is made against a vacant post, such an adhoc appointee is entitled to continue till the post is regularly filled. The stipulation made in the contract of appointment as also in the appointment letter that the appointment would come to an end after completion of 89 days cannot be enforced against the Petitioner as the same is un-reasonable and arbitrary.