The Lieutenant Governor And ORS. v. Esther Samuel And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WP.CT/171/2021 The Lieutenant Governor and others ... Petitioners Vs.

Esther Samuel and others ... Respondents Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Ramendu Agarwal ... for the petitioners Mr. P.C.Das Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the respondents July 18, 2022 [SR] Item No.5 The grievance of the appellants-Administration is that by virtue of clause (a) of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the applicants i.e. the present respondents, would be entitled to claim rights akin to a regular government employee. It is submitted, by placing reliance on the contract between the Administration and the respondents, which has been renewed from time to time, that the nature of the appointment was adhoc and there was a specific stipulation that the contract would not confer any right to regular employment on the respondents.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is a well settled principle of law that an adhoc employee cannot be replaced by another adhoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following regular procedure prescribed. Learned counsel for the

respondents cites an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court dated April 21, 2022 rendered in Civil Appeal No.3084-3088 of 2022 Manish Gupta and another vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others.

It is contended that the said ratio strengthens the case of the respondents that Clause (a) was rightly inserted in the impugned order.

Upon considering the submissions of the parties and the judgment cited from the bar, it is evident that clause (a) of the impugned order, where the Tribunal specifically observed that the applicants would be engaged by the Administration to perform the duties of Lecturer of Political Science "till a regular appointment is made" in accordance with the recruitment rules through the established recruitment process, does not confer, in any manner, any right on the respondents on a similar footing as a regular employee.

It is, therefore, clarified that the impugned order does not confer any new right or special equity in favour of the respondents conferring the rights and privileges of a regular employee on the respondents ipso facto.

However, we do not find, in principle, any illegality in the impugned order inasmuch as the Administration has been directed to engage the applicants to perform the duties of

Lecturer of Political Science till a regular appointment is made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.

The apparent insinuation of the arguments of the petitioners is that there is no requirement at present and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Administration, on instructions, that the Administration does not want to terminate the service of the respondent in mid-term. Hence, there cannot be any scope of interference with the said order. Accordingly, it is hereby observed that the impugned order does not confer any special right or equity on the respondents, other than the respondent already has in law, merely by virtue of the impugned order.

WP.CT/171/2021 and the connected applications, if any, stand accordingly disposed of.

( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. ) ( Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. )