Rajeena Rehman And ORS v. Union Of India And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/959/2023 Rajeena Rehman and Others Vs.

Union of India and Others Mr. Ashish Kumar Chowdhury ... for the petitioners [through virtual mode] Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents [on behalf of Mr.S.Chakraborty] October 17, 2023 [SR] Item No.1 The petitioners assail the vacancy notice issued by the Director, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Institute of Medical Sciences (ANIIMS) on 11th July, 2023 inviting application for the posts mentioned therein purely on contract basis for one year and coterminous with regular recruitment.

By virtue of a Walk-in-Interview notice issued by the authority, the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis by the authority, their appointment being extended from time to time, the last extension being upto 30th September, 2023. The vacancy notice was issued by the authority for contractual appointment to the posts already held by the petitioners and the service of the petitioners were not extended by the authority any further.

Placing reliance on an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on December 10, 2021 in WPA/295/2021 (Andaman and Nicobar Rajya Karmachari Mahasangh and another vs.

The Lieutenant Governor and others), Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292, Union Public Service Commission vs. Dr. Jamuna Kurup and others reported in (2008) 11 SCC 10, State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the authority could not have advertised for appointment to contractual posts upon termination of the contractual service of the petitioners. The authorities could at best have issued such notice for regular appointment. The petitioners seek quashing of the said notice.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits the contractual appointment of the petitioners has come to an end with efflux of time. The said contract has not been extended by the authority any further. The authorities relied by the petitioners are not applicable in the present case in so far as their appointment is concerned since they are no longer in service as on date.

I have considered the rival contention of both the parties. It is not in dispute that the contractual appointment of the petitioners which was extended from time to time has come to an end upon efflux of time. The vacancy notice has been issued for the same posts for contractual appointment to the posts held by the petitioners.

The authorities relied upon by the petitioners unanimously hold that one adhoc arrangement cannot be replaced by another adhoc arrangement and appointment on contractual basis cannot be terminated by a similar appointment on contractual basis. Such appointment should be for regular employees.

The petitioners have submitted a representation ventilating their grievance before the authority on 28th August, 2023 which is yet to be considered. The petitioners seek a direction upon the authority to consider their representation at the earliest.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the eighth respondents be directed to consider the representation in accordance with law.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the eighth respondent to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioners dated 28th August, 2023 within four weeks from the date of communication of this order upon affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner and in the light of the observation made by this Court in this order as well as the authorities relied upon by the petitioners, in accordance with law.

The decision taken by the authority shall be communicated to the petitioners within a week thereafter. The writ petition being WPA/959/2023 is accordingly disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Pending disposal of the representation, the vacancy notice dated 11th July, 2023 shall not be given effect to by the authority.

Since affidavit has not been invited, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

( Suvra Ghosh, J. )