RANDHIR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed the present petition seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to fill up the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Surgery so that petitioner, who was appointed as Senior Resident, may be absorbed on the post of Assistant Professor. Petitioner has also challenged Advertisement dated 07.06.2012, saying post of Assistant Professor was not advertised with ulterior motive to deprive the petitioner to be absorbed on the post of Assistant Professor. During the pendency of the present petition, vide order dated 28.10.2012, extension of tenure of the petitioner and other doctors was revoked, therefore, petitioner has moved I.A. No. 3247 of 2012, seeking permission to challenge the order dated 28.10.2012 as well. Undisputedly, petitioner was appointed initially on contract basis only for three years. Admittedly, contract tenure was extended till further orders, vide order, dated 20.01.2010.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that petitioner and other doctors working under the contract were given assurance that they would be absorbed in the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) as and when vacancy arises and No Objection Certificate was refused to the petitioner to join other states while making aforesaid assurance for the absorption of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since promises were made to the petitioner and other contractual doctors to absorb them as such now it is not open to the respondents to terminate the services of the contractual doctors by revoking the extension. He has further argued that since petitioner is already working in the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), therefore, he has reasonable expectation for the absorption. He has further argued that in the past also, contractual doctors were absorbed permanently, therefore, petitioner has legal right to be absorbed.

(3.) AS per the dictum of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), contractual appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract. It is not open to the Court to prevent regular appointment at the instance, of an employee whose period of employment has come to an end. This Court (High Court) should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption or regularisation. The theory of reasonable expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise. The State cannot constitutionally make such promise.