Contractual employee should only be replaced by regularly selected employee: HC

 STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: First Puisine Judge Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar, while disposing of a batch of writ petitions seeking restraint on their substitution by another set of contractual employees held that “The normal rule is recruitment through the prescribed agency but due to administrative exigencies, an adhoc or temporary appointments may be made in such situation, efforts should always be made to replace such adhoc or temporary employee by regularly selected employees, as early as possible. Adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee. He must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee.”
“If they are found not to be up to the mark or efficient then continuation will be a question mark and it is for the authorities to decide the best course of action in a non-arbitrary manner”, adding “if contract lecturers seek extension then they have to make a representation for considering the extension of service, which can be considered on its own merits.”
The petitioners, having been engaged as Lecturers and Vocational Instructors, on contractual basis, on academic arrangement challenged Advertisement Notifications dated 19.01.2008; 31.07.2008 and 09.02.2010, wherein, fresh applications were invited through Advocate D. S. Chauhan. The writ petitioners sought setting-aside of the Advertisement Notices pertaining to their respective cases and prayed that their status vis-a-viz Lecturers and Vocational Instructors be not disturbed.
Ajay Sharma, Additional Advocate General appearing for Higher & Technical Education Department submitted that the first relief that is now sought by the petitioners, has become in fructuous at this point of time because the academic session 2008-09 for which the engagements were contemplated is already over. Therefore, no relief can be granted so far as first prayer is concerned.
Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar while dealing with second relief, whereby, the petitioners sought writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to regularize their services by relaxation of rules observed “That the petitioners are not entitled to regularization of their services against the posts they have been engaged on contract/temporary basis as the said engagement has been done without following any procedure as provided for filing up the posts belonging to State Cadre.”
With these observations, High Court disposed of all writ petitions filed by the contractual lecturers of Higher Education.