DODDAIAH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing the order of respondent 3, dated 1-5-1964 terminating his services as Head Cooly. He also prays for an appropriate writ or order directing the third respondent to reinstate him in the Public Works Department of the Government of Mysore, in preference to respondents 4 to 17. There is also a prayer for quashing the reinstatement of respondents 4 to 13

(2.) In his affidavit, the petitioner states that he was appointed as a Gang-Workman in the year 1946 in the Public Works Department He worked in that capacity till 30-9-1960 and was duly given increments every year. Thereafter he was appointed as Head Cooly on 30-9-1960 on a salary of Rs. 60 per month A service register showing him as an employer in the Public Works Department was also opened on 287-1960 On 1-5-1964, the third respondent terminated his services as also of respondents 4 to 13 as per Exhibit A. The complaint of the petitioner is that respondents 14 to 17 who bad put in only 5 or 4 years of service and were far junior to him were retained in service und he was arbitrarily and capriciously singled out and discharged from service though he had put in 24 years of service The petitioner further complains that respondents 4 to 13 who were junior to him and had also been discharged from service along with him bad been reinstated in service Respondent 3 refused to reinstate him though he was senior and his record of service was without any blemish. He therefore contends that there has been denial of equal and fair treatment in matters of employment and there has been a violation of Article 16 of the Constitution The petitioner also contends that the arbitrary and capricious termination of his service his violated the valuable safeguard guaranteed to him under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In the additional affidavit filed by him, the petitioner states that he is a permanent civil servant In the Public Works Department and his tenure of appointment is governed by the Mysore Civil Services Rules The arbitrary termination of his services by the third respondent and also the third respondent's refusal to reinstate him is gross discrimination and also violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16(2) of the Constitution and as such the said order of termination is liable to be set aside

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent 1 (State of Mysore), it is stated that the petitioner was temporarily appointed and he had no legal right to the post. It denied that the post of Head Cooly in the Public Works Department is a civil post under the Stale Government Head Coolies like the petitioner were seasonal employees of the Public Works Department and their services were terminated as they were no longer required The termination of the services is valid and is not violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution With regard to the allegation of the petitioner in regard to violation of Article 16 of the Constitution if is contended that Article 16 is not attracted as he recruitment of coolies depends purely on expediency and at the discretion of the concerned authorities The allegation that there was discrimination ii denied.