Patna High Court: Madhuresh Prasad, J. disposed of the writ petition on the grounds that the extending of the petitioner’s engagement would not create a precedent for the respondents.
The petitioner was engaged on contract basis for a period of one year as a Peon in the District Child Protection Unit at Gaya, pursuant to an Advertisement in the year 2011. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that after the lapse of one year’s contract period, the respondents, having appreciated the petitioner’s work, renewed his contractual employment by extending the engagement till January, 2018. After the end of such extension, the petitioner’s claim for continuation on contract basis has been rejected under the order dated 03-05-2018.
The petitioner also submitted that according to the Office Order dated 03-05-2018, the petitioner would stand deprived of consideration of his claim for contractual engagement in future on account of the authorities having recorded that the petitioner’s work was unsatisfactory. The counsel argued that this was contrary to the positive review that led to his continuance till January, 2018.
The Court after careful consideration and after going through the Advertisement of 2011 held that the advertisement contemplated contractual engagement for a period of one year only. The fact that the respondents have allowed the petitioner to continue till January, 2018 would not create a vested right in the petitioner to claim renewal of the contract in the times to come.
In view of the above noted facts, the instant petition was disposed of accordingly with the observation that in future when the respondent authorities would be exercising the option of contractual appointment, the petitioner will have the right to apply and his case would have to be considered as per the terms of the advertisement and the requirements therein.[Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 1509, decided on 29-08-2019]
