Jammu, Aug 23: In O.A./925/2024 (JAMMU) titled MEENAKSHI Vs HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT after hearing CAT ordered as under:-
M.A. No. 787 of 2024 M.A. No. 787 of 2024 has been filed by ld. counsel for the applicants seeking permission of this tribunal for joint together is allowed for the reasons stated therein. O.A. No. 925 of 2024
1. Mr. Nitin Bhasin, ld. counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants came to be engaged as Lecturer/Teaching Assistant on academic arrangement in Higher Education Department in different years, some of them as far as 15 years back, on the basis of selection made by the Nodal Principal from time to time.
2. Ld. counsel for the applicants further submitted that during the session 2019-20, the Government issued new guidelines in terms of Government Order dated 17.02.2020, by virtue of which, the terms and conditions under which the applicants were appointed in tune with the policy of Government earlier in point of time were being changed/ modified and they were sought to be replaced/ substituted with new candidates on similar arrangement, so they filed OAs before the Hon'ble Central Tribunal Jammu Bench for quashing new guidelines as well as section 3(b) of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act 2010 and further allowing them continuation in service and not to replace them with similar arrangement.
This Hon'ble Tribunal passed an interim order dated 25.06.2020 and protected the status of t he applicants. Despite that the respondents proceeded ahead with the fresh selection and notified the vacancies against the Tribunal's order, which contrained the applicants to file contempt petitions before this Tribunal.
The Tribunal found a prima facie case of disobedience by the respondents and direct the respondents to remain present before this Tribunal on the next date of hearing for framing of charges against them vide order dated 24.11.2020.
3. Ld. counsel for the applicants further submitted that the respondents filed Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also found a case disobedience of the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal and therefore, directed that the applicants shall be given continuity of services on the basis of status quo orders granted by the Hon'ble Tribunal.
4. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Dewakar Sharma, ld. DAG appear and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and vehemently opposed the prayer made by ld. counsel for the applicants.
5. Heard ld. counsel for the parties.
6. In view of the above, I came to the conclusion that the applicant are working as Lecturer/Teaching Assistant on academic arrangement in Higher Education Department and they were replaced/ substituted with new candidates on similar arrangement. This issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in so many cases, some of which are mentioned:-
(a) State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Piara Singh & Ors. Reported in 1992 (4) SCC 118. (b) State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Suresh Kumar Verma & Anr. reported in 1996 (7) SCC 562. (c) Manish Gupta vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, {SLP (C) No. 12946 of 2017}.
7. In the aforesaid judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that one set of contract employees cannot be replaced with another set of employees engaged in the very same terms.
8. Thereafter, similar judgement has been passed by this Tribunal on 12.06.2024 in O.A. No. 103 of 2020.
The operative part of this judgement is as: "the respondents shall permit the applicants to continue working until their post is filled by way of regular mode of selection and they will not be replaced by similar arrangement if workload is available with the department."
9. Accordingly, the respondents are restrained from making any fresh selection and engagement against the vacancies on which this Tribunal has allowed continuity of service to the applicants and they may further be directed to allow the applicants to continue their service against the said vacancies.
For the rest, the respondents is given liberty to make selection/appointment.
10. Ld. DAG is also directed to file the reply.
11. List on 25.09.2024.
|