A convicted person has no right to ask for his reinstatement at his previous temporary job merely because his sentence was suspended by the Court is upheld by the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court through a single judge bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal in the case of Tikendra v. State of Rajasthan and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 1908/2022).
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filled this writ petition for reinstatement of his previous job. The petitioner was a helper in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Government Satellite Hospital, Ajmer appointed on temporary contract basis. Thereafter, the petitioner was convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Ajmer under Sections 498-A (Cruelty to women), 304-B (Dowry Death) and 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust) and was sentenced to maximum term of seven years. The sentence has been suspended by the Rajasthan High Court. Thereafter, the petitioner applied with the respondents to permit him to rejoin on the post of Helper whereupon he was told that on account of pendency of criminal case his services were terminated and another person was appointed against the vacant temporary post of Helper and as on date there was no vacancy of Helper.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is entitled for reinstatement on account of suspension of the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court. He submitted that the petitioner has almost five years experience on the post of Helper and hence, the writ petition be allowed and the respondents may be directed to permit him to rejoin on the post of Helper.
The High Court observed that the petitioner was appointed as Helper on purely contractual basis and his services have been terminated on12.09.2016 which has not been challenged by him. Furthermore, another person was appointed by the Hospital who is still working and no post of Helper is vacant in the office. In view thereof, the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement/rejoining on a temporary post on which he was appointed on purely contractual basis which, as a matter of fact, is not vacant also as on date. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court as to his legal right to rejoin/reinstatement. The Court also held that even otherwise also the Court has stayed his sentence only; but, “the order of conviction involving moral turpitude still stands and hence, he has no right to rejoin”.
Judgement reviewed by- Paras Jindal