E-Paper
Govt can restrict right of an employee to apply elsewhere: HC
The Punjab and Haryana high court held that an employer has a right to restrict its employee from applying elsewhere to defeat the practice of those in public employment hopping from one job to another
The Punjab and Haryana high court held that an employer has a right to restrict its employee from applying elsewhere to defeat the practice of those in public employment hopping from one job to another.
The HC bench of justice Anil Kshetrapal said that selection of a public servant consumes a lot of time and involves a lot of expenditure for the employer. And contract conditions that are unlawful or forbidden by the law cannot be imposed. But to stop job-hoppers, certain conditions can be imposed.
In the case in hand, Yogesh Kumar Vashisht was an assistant professor with the department of forensic medicine at the Bhagat Phool Singh Government Medical College for Women in Khanpur Kalan, Sonepat.
In 2019, he had applied for the post of assistant professor at Pandit BD Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak.
However, he was denied no-objection certificate (NOC) by the institute. He had challenged this decision in the HC, arguing that the contract signed at the time of employment with the clause as in given case is “unconscionable” and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it deprives a person the right to equality before law.
At the time of employment, the bargaining power between an employee and the state is unequal and thus, the employee has no other option but to sign on the dotted line, the petitioner had argued.
The court found that at the time of employment, Vashisht had signed a contract according to which he was not to get NOC till completion of five years of service. If he was to resign, he was to submit three-month advance notice or deposit three months’ salary.
Another condition was that the resignation will be accepted only after arrangement of a suitable substitute in his place so that studies of students and patient care do not get affected.
The court observed that the restrictions imposed are only for a period of five years and that the petitioner could not have applied for the same post. There is no restriction on applying for a higher post.
“By now, it is well known that sometimes qualified persons indulge in job-hopping. Such clause has been incorporated to curb such practices,” the bench said, adding that selection of a public servant consumes a lot of time and involves a lot of expenditure for the employer.
“If the teacher, who has been appointed after following a long process, is allowed to hop from one job to another immediately after joining, then students are likely to suffer,” it added, dismissing the plea.
The court said that the clause is not in violation of Article 14 and the Indian Contract Act. Rule 21 of the Haryana Medical Education Service Rules, 1988, enables an employer to impose special terms and conditions in the order of appointment. If the petitioner wants to resign, he has to comply with the rules and terms of the appointment letter, the court added.
