9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Breach of fundamental rights under articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner was employed by the Government of India on a five-year contract, which was later extended through a new offer. The terms of the extension included being governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949. Rule 5 of these rules allowed for the termination of services by providing one month's notice, which was duly given to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that his fundamental rights under articles 14 and 16(1) were violated due to the termination of his contract. However, the Court found that the termination was in accordance with the terms of the contract and did not amount to dismissal or removal from service as defined in the relevant rules. The Court delved into the distinction between "dismissal" and "removal" from service under the Civil Services Rules. It explained that while dismissal disqualifies from future employment, removal does not have the same effect. The Court highlighted that the termination of a person engaged under contract, as per the terms of the contract, does not fall under removal or dismissal. Therefore, the protections provided under article 311 of the Constitution did not apply in this case, and no discrimination was found as the petitioner had voluntarily entered into the contract. Regarding the violation of article 16(1) which deals with equality of opportunity in employment, the Court emphasized that the petitioner had not been denied any opportunity of employment or appointment. The offer of temporary employment on specific terms did not amount to discrimination as the State has the freedom to enter into such contracts, provided they are not unconstitutional. The Court reiterated that the petitioner was treated like any other person offered temporary employment under similar conditions and that the matter primarily revolved around contractual obligations rather than constitutional rights. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition under article 32 of the Constitution as it found no infringement of any fundamental rights. The petitioner's persistence in reopening the case led to the dismissal of the petition with costs, emphasizing that the contractual terms were binding, and no constitutional violations were established.
|
