news details |
|
|
| Temporary employee be not replaced by another such employee: HC | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, July 13: First puisine judge of high court, Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar directed that ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee.
He must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee, he ordered.
Disposing of a bunch of petitions filed by temporary employees, seeking restraint on their substitution by another set of contractual employees, Justice Sudhakar said, "The normal rule is recruitment through the prescribed agency but due to administrative exigencies, an ad-hoc or temporary appointment may be made. However, efforts should always be made to replace such ad-hoc or temporary employee by regularly selected employee as early as possible. Ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee."
"If temporary employees are found not to be up to the mark or efficient, their continuation will be a question mark and it is for the authorities to decide the best course of action in a non-arbitrary manner," he said, adding, "If contractual lecturers seek extension, 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 had challenged the January 19, 2008, July 31, 2008 and February 9, 2010 advertisement notifications wherein fresh applications were invited. They had sought setting aside of these advertisement notices and prayed that their status vis-a-vis lecturers and vocational instructors be not disturbed.
The additional advocate general, appearing for the higher and technical education department, submitted that the relief sought by the petitioners had become infructuous at this point of time because the academic session 2008-09 for which the engagements were contemplated was already over. Therefore, no relief could be granted so far as their first prayer was concerned.
Justice Sudhakar, dealing with second relief, whereby the petitioners had sought writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to regularise their services by relaxation of rules, observed "that the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation of their services against the posts they have been engaged on 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, the court disposed of all writ petitions filed by the contratucal lecturers of higher education department. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
