UPENDRA NARAIN CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE cannot be any dispute that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee, unless it is shown and established that the employee, who has been replaced, was not worth retaining.

(2.) In or about 1980 -81 the Government decided that every Block in the State must have at least four High Schools. In order to achieve the said object the Government encouraged people to establish such Schools. Accordingly such Schools were established by the people of the locality. After the Schools were so established and they achieved their appropriate standard, some of them were taken over. Petitioners were employees of some of such Schools. The Schools, in which the petitioners no. 3 and 5 were working, were not taken over by the Government and, accordingly, claim of the said petitioners for appointment by the Government is of no effect. Admittedly, the Schools, in which the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 4 were working, became Government Schools. The petitioners were, however, working in those Schools on ad hoc basis. Similarly, eleven other people were also working in similar Schools, which were taken over, as ad hoc employees. Those eleven people as well as the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 4 lost their ad hoc appointments in the month of May, 1989. While those eleven people filed a writ petition, registered as CWJC No. 5120 of 1989, ventilating their grievance against termination of their ad hoc appointments, petitioners no. 1, 2 and 4 did not approach this Court at that stage. The said writ petition, registered as CWJC No. 5120. of 1989, was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 17th March, 1990 whereby and under the Authorities concerned were directed to consider the cases of those eleven people. Accordingly, cases of those eleven people were considered and they were retained back. The petitioners, after having come to learn about the success of those eleven people, filed a writ petition, which was registered as CWJC No. 2622 of 1991, seeking similar relief as had been sought for by those eleven people in the writ petition, registered as CWJC No. 5120 of 1989, and obtained similar or identical relief from this Court through an order dated 2nd September, 1991. The order dated 2nd September, 1991 was not implemented and hence the petitioners filed a contempt petition. In the contempt petition a show cause was filed and thereby copy of a letter dated 15th October, 1991 showing discharge of obligation of the respondents in the said writ petition, registered as CWJC No. 2622 of 1991, was annexed. In that it was stated that the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 4, after having had joined the subject Schools, on their own left the same and, accordingly, the vacancies, thus, created were supplied by regular appointments. In the body of the show cause it was indicated who had been appointed in place of which of the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 4. Petitioners filed a rejoinder to the show cause and thereby contended that the appointments of the people in place of the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 4 were illegal, ad hoc or provisional appointments. In view of the said state of pleadings, this Court granted liberty to the petitioners to convert the said contempt petition into a writ petition and the petitioners having exercised their liberty converted the said contempt petition into the present writ petition.

(3.) PETITIONERS No. 1, 2 and 4 did not dispute in the pleadings that the posts held by them were not supplied by subsequent appointments, but contended that they were -supplied by ad hoc or provisional appointments. The pleading of the petitioners, thus made, has not been substantiated by any evidence.