JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. Heard Sri R.P.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. A counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 2, (who is also the Member-Secretary of District Peyjal Evam Swakshata Samiti, Agra, Respondent No. 3) has been filed, to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed today. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
2. The admitted facts of this case are that under the scheme of the State Government known as "Sampurna Swakshata Ke Karyakram Ke Antargat Janpad Peyjal Evam Swakshata Samiti", applications were invited for appointment of Computer Programmer, for which the petitioner had also applied. After due selection, the petitioner was given a fixed term appointment on 6.6.2001 for a period of six months on a consolidated pay of Rs. 5,000/- per month. On the expiry of the period of six months, the contract of the petitioner was extended time and again for six months each time and admittedly the last term of the petitioner expired on 16.6.2005. Thereafter the Respondent No. 2/3 did not extend the contract of the petitioner and instead issued an advertisement dated 19.7.2005 for appointing fresh person as Computer Programmer for a period of six months. Challenging the said advertisement the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Another prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to work as Computer Programmer.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that on having been engaged after due selection, his work and conduct has been satisfactory and he has been working to the entire satisfaction of the respondent-authorities inasmuch as he has been given regular extensions from time to time. Several letters certifying his integrity as well as his work and conduct had been issued in his favour from time to time, which have been filed as Annexures-5 to 10 to the writ petition, and have not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Further, after the expiry of his last contract on 16.6.2005 the Respondent No. 2 had himself recommended to the Chief Development Officer that his contract be extended, as the work and conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory, and he has done excellent job relating to the functioning of the scheme, and has also taken keen interest in the computerization of the Zila Panchayat Raj Office. It had also been stated by the respondent No. 2 that the funds for payment of salary for Computer Programmer had also been allocated, and on such ground the Respondent No. 2 Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari strongly recommended that the period of contract of the petitioner be extended. The submission of the petitioner is that in such circumstances, instead of extending the period of contract of the petitioner, the respondent-authorities have issued the advertisement only to accommodate some other person of their choice. It has been urged that since the work of the petitioner has been satisfactory and his integrity is also certified, there is no reason why he should be replaced, as it is settled law that an adhoc/temporary employee cannot be replaced by another adhoc/temporary employee.
4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel |has submitted that since there is no regular sanctioned post of Computer Programmer, the petitioner does not acquire any right to continue merely because of having been given appointment on contract basis; that the respondents are at liberty to remove the petitioner after the completion of the period of contract and appoint any other person, and it has thus been urged that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Further it has been submitted that in the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2, in paragraph 7 it has been stated that the functioning of the petitioner was not found suitable and satisfactory in the department, and that he was careless in working and was of doubtful character.
5. It is true that the petitioner may not: have any right to be appointed as a permanent employee under the scheme in which he has been working, but this Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that he has been working on contract basis for more than four years to the satisfaction of the respondent-authorities and his integrity as well as work and conduct have been certified by the respondents from time to time, because of which his contract had been renewed time and again and the Respondent No. 2 had himself recommended for extension of his contract. The respondent-authorities, being an instrumentality of the State, are expected to act fairly. The contention of the petitioner has force that an adhoc/contract employee cannot be replaced by another adhoc/contract employee.
6. True it may be that the petitioner was not adhoc or temporary employee working on a sanctioned post, but since the petitioner has worked on contract basis for a considerably long period and had been initially kept on contract after having undergone the selection process, he acquires some status which has the semblance of a temporary employee. By having been initially engaged after facing the selection process the petitioner cannot be said to have got the job through backdoor. It is true that fixed time appointments come to an end when such period expires and such worker has no right to continue, but the facts of this particular case are different from a simple case of fixed term appointment or engagement of a worker through backdoor without a selection process.
7. Keeping in view the fact that the respondents still have the work as well as the post on which the petitioner has been working for over four years and funds for payment of salary in that head are also available, the respondents cannot be permitted to replace the petitioner by another contract hand especially when the petitioner had been appointed/engaged after due selection and his integrity as well as work and conduct has been duly certified time and again. The averments regarding his work and conduct as made in the counter affidavit are totally unsubstantiated as they are not based on any document, and on the contrary, the same officer who has sworn the counter affidavit had himself strongly recommended his case for extension. The facts and circumstances of this case would go to show that the respondent authorities are now inclined to accommodate some other person of their choice because of which the impugned advertisement dated 19.7.2005 has been issued. In my view, in such facts and circumstances, the same would not be permissible and the protection of law given to an adhoc employee of not being replaced by another adhoc appointee would be available to the petitioner.
8. In such view of the matter and for the reasons aforementioned, the advertisement dated 19.7.2005 is quashed. It is directed that before offering appointment to any other person, the respondents shall first consider taking work of Computer Programmer from the petitioner on the basis of contract on the same terms and conditions on which he was earlier working.
9. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.