IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2854/02 Akhilesh Kumar vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 4/11/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Ms. Anisha Jain for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Additional Government Counsel for the State. ****** This writ petition seeks to challenge the notice dated 3.4.2002 whereby the services of the petitioner who was engaged on contract basis are sought to be discontinued upon expiry of notice period of one month. Ms. Anisha Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and illegal as the project in which the petitioner was engaged is still continuing. The respondents are seeking to remove him only because they want to accommodate some other person. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Class- IV whereas he was required to discharge the duties of LDC. The petitioner made representations to the Chief Minister of the State who directed the concerned authority to sympathetically consider his case for regular appointment. Instead of doing so, however, the respondents are seeking to remove him from service. Learned counsel contended that the practice of removing one set of ad hoc employees and appointing another set in their place has been depreciated by Supreme Court in number of cases. So as long as the project retains, the need of a class IV employee / LDC would also exist and therefore the petitioner should be continued. It is also argued that number of posts exist with the respondent department and therefore the respondents should be directed to consider his case for regularisation of such posts keeping in view that the petitioner has worked since 27.10.1998 till now. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is physically handicapped person and the respondents have large number of vacant posts reserved for physical handicapped, therefore, his case should be considered against such posts. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis in the services of the Rajasthan Residential Educational Institutions Society (for short-RREIS) through its Secretary. Copy of the agreement dated 27.10.1998 has been produced for perusal of the Court. It is contended that the agreement was renewed time and again and lastly when the respondents felt that there was no necessity for retaining him any longer, they issued notice, which is impugned herein. It is argued that mere engagement does not entitle him for any preferential treatment as there are number of other handicapped persons who are better qualified than the petitioner. In any case, there cannot be any case for regularisation of service because appointment of the petitioner was made in the project. It was therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner rejoined and while referring to the note sheet of the respondent Department produced at Schedule A submitted that the respondents themselves have in this note sheet admitted that seven vacant posts are available which are reserved for the handicapped candidates and in specific seven posts were such which could be filled up by the handicapped persons. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the entire material on record. I find that even the petitioner does not himself deny that his appointment was not made on regular basis and that he was engaged on contract basis in the services of the society. The agreement indicates that appointment of the petitioner was made on Class IV post. The respondents have given the particulars of different periods in which his service is extended. In the light of this fact, the direction to regularise services of the petitioner cannot possibly be given because it is a project and soon upon the completion / abolition of the project, the very purpose of engaging the petitioner would seize to exist. At the same time, however, so long the project exists and the respondents decide to have the post of Class-IV employee, they cannot dispense with the services of the petitioner, just because in their perspective, other handicapped and more qualified persons may be available for appointment against such posts. I am inclined to uphold the argument that one set of ad hoc employees cannot be replaced by another and so long as the respondents require the services of the employees on daily wages, the petitioner should be given priority keeping in view the spirit of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Allowing the respondents to dispense with service of one ad hoc employee so as to accommodate another again on ad hoc basis would only be arbitrary exercise of power. So far as seven posts, reference of which was made to the petitioner is concerned, those posts are the posts of Hostel Superintendent and the petitioner was a Class IV employee. Since he was not eligible for appointment as Hostel Superintendent, such direction cannot be given. At the same time, however keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is handicapped and has worked with the respondents for last 10 years, the respondents may consider his case for appointment on any post of Class IV employee in the quota of handicapped candidates keeping in view their various administrative circulars issued in that behalf and petitioner would be at liberty to submit a representation to the respondents which shall be considered and decided by the respondents within a period of three months in accordance with law. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/