Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18721 of 2017 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh (Comp. Oprater) Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjeet Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hemendra Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Rejoinder affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State – respondents.
This petition had been preferred seeking quashing of an order in terms of which the claim of absorption of the petitioner in government service on the post of Computer Operator has come to be negatived.
On 03.08.2017, on an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, a learned Judge of this Court proceeded to pass the following order:-
“1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.03.2017 issued by the In-charge Medical Officer, P.P. Centre, Mughalsarai informing the petitioner that he is not required to work after 01.04.2017. This order was a consequential order only issued in terms of the order dated 25.03.2017 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Chandauli. The original order dated 25.03.2017 has also been challenged by the petitioner by means of Amendment Application.
2. The case of petitioner is that he was initially engaged through a Service Provider but the Service Provider did not wish to continue with the contract and the Committee constituted for the purpose of determining the work of various programmes under National Health Rural Mission had taken a decision that the the Service Provider was not willing to work any further, but the two Computer Operators provided by such Service Provider may be allowed to continue as Computer Operators for the Financial Year 2016-2017 on individual contracts entered into between them and the authorities.
3. In pursuance of the said decision taken in the meeting dated 28.06.2016 the petitioner was engaged on contract again up to 31st of March, 2017. On conclusion of the tenure mentioned in the contract his services have been terminated. No right accrues to the petitioner to continue to work as contractual employee if the tenure of the contract has ended and the State-Respondents do not wish to carry on his engagement.
4. The counsel for the State-Respondents prays for and is granted time to seek specific instructions and file a counter affidavit with regard to an order dated 17.03.2017 issued by the National Rural Health Mission Unit, annexed as Annexure No. 7 wherein certain programmes including Janani Suraksha Yojana in which the petitioner was engaged have been directed to continue even for the Financial Year 2017-2018.
5. List this matter after three weeks on 24th of August, 2017.
6. This matter shall not be treated as part heard or tied up of this Bench.”
As is evident from the order, extracted herein above, the learned Judge had clearly recorded that no right accrued to the petitioner to continue to work as a contractual employee, if the tenure of the contract had ended and the State wants not to carry on his engagement. The only instruction, which was sought thereafter, was in respect of the permissibility of the petitioner being engaged in certain different programmes, which were continued even after the Financial Year 2017-18.
Be that as it may, the fundamental question, which arises, is whether the petitioner can compel the respondent by way of a writ to continue his engagement or to decide his absorption in government service. Undisputedly, the petitioner was engaged through a private service provider. No privity of contract ever existed between him and the State – respondents. Once the contract of the service provider came to an end, no right continued in the petitioner to seek engagement further under the State. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, resting on certain communications addressed by the District Health Mission as well as the continuance of another contractual employee, is noticed only to be rejected for the reason that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot possibly operate in the negative.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Amit Mishra